PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
	 To be read the Third time on Thursday 13 March.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] ( By Order )
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  ( By Order )
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill  ( By Order )
	 — 
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  ( By Order )
	 — 
	Manchester City Council Bill  [Lords]   ( By Order )
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  ( By Order )
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  ( By Order )

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 March.

Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Northern Rock

Desmond Swayne: What strategic business objectives he has set for Northern Rock.

Alistair Darling: The new board is developing a strategic plan, and once that is completed, we will be able to tell the House and the public more.

Desmond Swayne: Will the bank continue to take deposits in Guernsey—deposits that will benefit from the Government's guarantee, but the interest on which will not be liable to United Kingdom tax?

Alistair Darling: As I said, we will have to wait and see what the board proposes. The board will look at all the products that Northern Rock currently sells. It is acutely aware of its responsibilities, and of the fact that it is trading with the benefit of Government support at the moment. As I said, it will publish its plan fairly shortly and everyone will then have an opportunity to see what it proposes.

John McFall: I welcome the appointment of Ron Sandler to his new post. One of the first initiatives that he undertook was to abolish the Together mortgage—the 125 per cent. loan to value. That was a good move, because I considered that mortgage an example of irresponsible lending. However, does the Chancellor appreciate that there are genuine issues of competition at stake? A number of banks and others have been on to me, and at the moment the spread between the inter-bank rate—the LIBOR rate—and base rates is considerable. That may be causing problems for companies. In advance of Ron Sandler's appearance before the Treasury Committee, would the Chancellor discuss those issues with him so that he can put our minds at ease on that competitive advantage, which others in the market have seen?

Alistair Darling: My right hon. Friend raises two matters. First, with regard to Northern Rock's competitive position, he is absolutely right that Ron Sandler and the board will want to look at what it is selling and offering. I understand that the board is looking at that now with a view to ensuring that whatever products it has on the market are priced appropriately. Everyone recognises that it would be unfair for the bank to rely on those guarantees for anything like a short period, and it would not be possible in terms of the Government's objectives of reducing and removing their guarantees in due course. On his second point, the Bank of England keeps the spread of interest rates and the LIBOR rate under constant review.

Peter Viggers: Based on 2006 accounts, the inclusion of Northern Rock in the national accounts would add £90.7 billion to public sector net debt and increase the debt-to-GDP ratio by 6.7 per cent. In view of suggestions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be seeking to airbrush Northern Rock out of the national accounts, will he explain how he intends to deal with Northern Rock in the financial statements accompanying his Budget?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will see that next week, but I cannot believe that he is seriously suggesting that, because Northern Rock is temporarily on the Government's books, we should slash public spending to take account of that fact. That would be absolutely ridiculous.

Sally Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that Northern Rock had a very rapid expansion, it is likely that there will be a quick contraction of the business? Will he say how he is going to set about explaining that to the public, or ensuring that it is explained to the public, so that people do not get into a panic and think that there is a crisis, but understand that the process is part of an orderly management of the business?

Alistair Darling: The whole point of asking the board to produce a business plan is to plot a course for the future to enable the bank to continue to trade. Our objective has always been twofold: to ensure that we obtain value for the taxpayers on repayment of the Bank of England loan and to secure financial stability. Both elements have been met. We have been consistent in our objective throughout, and that will continue.

Michael Fallon: Given that the national statistician has ruled that Northern Rock, as a public company, should count as part of the public sector net debt, surely excluding it from the sustainable investment rule is nothing other than a straightforward political fiddle. Nobody is suggesting cutting public spending, only that the figures should be accurate.

Alistair Darling: The figures will be accurate. As the hon. Gentleman said, the national statistician has classified Northern Rock as part of the public sector. That is hardly surprising in view of the legislation that we passed a couple of weeks ago. However, the proposition that I put to the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) is that the Conservatives appear to argue that, because it is now on the books, we should take account of it in ensuring that we meet our fiscal rules. The code for fiscal stability, which is underpinned by legislation, makes it clear that we can accommodate a period of temporary public ownership, and that would be properly accounted for. To suggest that, by extension, we should take action that would be bad for the economy is ridiculous.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Northern Rock got into difficulties the primary responsibility of Government was to ensure that the banking system as a whole would not be undermined? Have not the Government achieved a great deal by restricting the difficulty to Northern Rock and resolving the position through the course that they have taken?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The justification for our intervening to provide facilities for Northern Rock was the genuine risk of the problems affecting it spreading to other financial institutions. That is why we took the decision. As I said a moment ago, one of our central objectives is to maintain the financial stability of the system. I expect that if we had not intervened the terms of the debate in the past few months would have been different. I remind the House that the decision that we made last September had all-party support at that time, precisely because it was the right thing to do.

David Evennett: What discussions have taken place between the Government and the Northern Rock board about the number of staff employed by the bank in future?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter, which is, of course, of concern to Northern Rock employees. The issue must be tackled as part of the bank's overall business plan as it moves from where it is today to a more viable position in future. I know that Ron Sandler and his colleagues are considering all the options and that they will want to discuss them with their staff and staff representatives. All those matters will be considered in the business plan. They need to be resolved relatively soon—the state aid approvals run out on 17 March and we must therefore submit a new application, although some of the details will take longer to be fully worked out. I will keep the House informed.

Peter Tapsell: Since the Government are so keen at present on European treaties, may I draw the Chancellor's attention to the fact that his proposals are a clear breach of the budget deficit procedure imposed on Britain by the Maastricht treaty? I opposed it at the time on the precise ground that he is now using: the inflexible rules that Europe lays down often have to be broken in unforeseen circumstances.

Alistair Darling: I know, as does the House, about the hon. Gentleman's difficulties with many matters European, but the fiscal rules that we operate are designed precisely to allow the flexibility that we need, not only for long-term investment, which is important, but for exceptional circumstances, such as the temporary ownership of Northern Rock. The rules were designed to take account of that possibility. However, it would be plain daft, having acquired Northern Rock, to take action that would be wholly inappropriate and damaging to the British economy.

Vincent Cable: What is an appropriate mortgage lending policy for a state-owned bank, bearing in mind that house prices are falling at 10 per cent. a year on the Nationwide index and 13 per cent. in the forward market, so that even the 90 per cent. mortgage would produce negative equity in a year, let alone the 95 per cent. mortgage, which the Government's Post Office is promoting?

Alistair Darling: It is for the board to devise a strategy to enable the bank to get out of its current difficulties. The hon. Gentleman will simply have to wait until then. It is true that house prices are slowing down, but on the back of many years when house prices were growing at 10 per cent., or even more in some parts of the country. Although the housing market in this country will slow down, I believe that it is fundamentally strong, but all lenders will want to price their products at what they regard an appropriate level now and at any time in the future.

Philip Hammond: What is the Chancellor's plan B if the European Commission rules that the Treasury's loan to Northern Rock is illegal state aid?

Alistair Darling: I believe that we can meet the European state aid rules. We have had many discussions with the Commission and I remain confident that we can resolve the situation, just as I was always confident that we could resolve the situation with regard to Northern Rock. The hon. Gentleman might be better employed trying to find a credible policy on Northern Rock—something that the Conservatives have singularly failed to do in the past six months.

Personal Debt

Annette Brooke: What recent estimate he has made of levels of personal debt.

Angela Eagle: According to the latest Bank of England statistics, total personal debt was £1.4 trillion in January 2008. That is against a background of economic stability and rising prosperity, with rising employment and robust income growth.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her answer, but given that about one fifth of all income is necessary just to service debt, which in turn will affect the demand for final goods and services, how confident is she about her forecast for economic growth of 2 to 2.5 per cent., when the consensus is that economic growth will slow down to 1.75 per cent.?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady will have to wait until next week for the updated forecast in the Budget. When looking at net debt, we must look at the level of assets, too, which have also risen, to £7.5 trillion. Household net wealth has risen by 72 per cent. in real terms under the economic policies pursued by the Government since 1997. I think that that is a success.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that an intrinsic part of personal debt is the mortgage? Is she worried that people are predicting a mortgage famine, as the banking system increasingly refuses to lend to anyone? Will that be good for the economy or for personal debt?

Angela Eagle: I am not quite so pessimistic as my hon. Friend. We are not complacent about the situation that we face, but I should point out that there have been 1.8 million more home owners in the past 10 years under Labour. Because of our policies of economic stability and success, the average mortgage rate has been 5.6 per cent., which is half what the Conservatives managed to achieve between 1979 and 1997. That makes mortgages more affordable.

Mark Field: I must confess that I was rather disappointed with the Exchequer Secretary's complacent answer to the original question. Does she not recognise that while she preaches stability and prudence her Department is setting the worst possible example of personal debt, given the enormous amount of public debt now on the balance sheet, which is getting ever worse?

Angela Eagle: Would the hon. Gentleman have preferred that we let Northern Rock go down?

Andrew Love: One of the best ways to address personal debt is through the provision of generic financial advice. This week the Thoresen review was published. Will my hon. Friend say whether she has had a chance to read it yet, when the Government are likely to come forward with recommendations based upon it and when we can look forward to a comprehensive system of generic financial advice throughout the country?

Angela Eagle: We strongly welcome the Thoresen review and have already announced £12 million to finance the pathfinder roll-out of all the generic financial advice involved in the review, in order to increase financial literacy, which Thoresen suggested that we do.

Northern Rock (Granite)

Andrew Turner: What Northern Rock's relationship with Granite is; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: Northern Rock set up Granite as a separate company structure for the sole purpose of raising finance for mortgage lending by Northern Rock. The commercial relationship between them reflects that. Other banks have set up similar securitisation arrangements.

Andrew Turner: The 2006 annual report says that Granite's
	"ultimate controlling party is Northern Rock".
	Did the Government nationalise Granite or did they forget?

Yvette Cooper: No, as we have made repeatedly clear, Northern Rock has been taken into temporary public ownership; Granite has not. It is the case that Northern Rock has significant control over Granite, because it sets the mortgage rates and decides whether to sell mortgages to Granite, and it set up Granite solely for the purpose of raising finance for mortgage lending by Northern Rock, so there is a clear commercial relationship between them. However, the hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that we should effectively buy out the Granite bond holders. That would not be sensible for the taxpayer and could lead to considerable taxpayer costs.

Philip Dunne: The Chief Secretary told us in the debate on the Banking (Special Provisions) Bill that Granite was not being taken into public ownership—she has just confirmed that again now—and that it was not being guaranteed by the Government. Was she not aware that, in the week before that debate, the Office for National Statistics had determined that Granite's debts would be included in the public sector net debt?

Yvette Cooper: Of course we were aware of the ONS classification, which was set out on the basis of the loans and guarantees provided to Northern Rock at the beginning, and not on the basis of the subsequent decision to take Northern Rock into temporary public ownership. The ONS approach is to look at issues of control, and it is right that it should do that. However, we have to take these decisions in the interest of the taxpayer. Safeguarding those loans and guarantees by taking Northern Rock into temporary public ownership was the right decision for the taxpayer. It would not have been the right decision to buy out Granite's bond holders. They take risks, and it is right that they should do so. Frankly, this is becoming another day, another policy from the Opposition. Now they want us to fork out to buy up Granite as well.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Chief Secretary recall that Ministers kept reassuring us that Northern Rock had a very strong loan book? Will she confirm, however, that all the mortgages that have been hived off to Granite are the best and the early mortgages, and that those remaining with Northern Rock represent a much higher risk?

Yvette Cooper: No; the Financial Services Authority has testified that the loan book held by Northern Rock is of high quality. It is the case that Northern Rock has sold high-quality mortgages to Granite, but Northern Rock also holds high-quality mortgages, as assessed by the FSA, on its own books. That is why we have taken the decisions that we have taken, in the interests of financial stability and of the taxpayer.

Investment in Schools

Linda Riordan: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of expenditure on secondary schools.

Yvette Cooper: Investment per pupil in England has increased from £2,500 a year in 1997 to £5,600 a year in 2007 to 2009. That has supported a big increase in attainment, with more than 60 per cent. of pupils now getting five or more GCSEs, compared with 45 per cent. in 1997. As the Leitch report showed, increasing skills in education has a long-term impact on economic growth.

Linda Riordan: I thank the Minister for her reply. Will she assure me that she will continue to work with colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that teenagers who want a practical, rather than an academic, career continue to get that funding and investment? That will enable the economy in Halifax to continue to grow, through the welcome investment by the Government into secondary education in Halifax, where GCSE results are above the national average and three of our schools—Halifax high, Park Lane and Sowerby Bridge—are in the top 30 most improved schools in the country.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right to say that there has been a significant improvement in the schools and education in her area. She is also right to say that that is a direct result of the additional investment that we have put in. I can assure her that I will continue to work closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on determining how we can sustain that investment and improve education in the future.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the most welcome announcements by the former Chancellor was his commitment to close the funding gap between the per pupil spend in state schools and that in private schools? Does the Treasury still share that commitment? Will it be possible, in next week's Budget statement, to give the House an update on the extent to which the funding gap has been narrowed?

Yvette Cooper: I can tell my hon. Friend that we think it right substantially to increase investment spending. In fact, that spending will rise as a result of the comprehensive spending review to £6,600 per pupil in 2010-11. It is not fair that those who are in private schools should get such a consistent advantage in investment and funding, and that is why we have set such great store by increasing investment—something that the Conservatives have repeatedly refused to support.

David Kidney: Given the national priority to raise skill levels as far and wide as we can, let me tell my right hon. Friend that when just one school in Stafford, the Sir Graham Balfour, was transformed through the private finance initiative from tired buildings on two sites to a modern state-of-the-art learning environment, attainment levels rocketed. The school is now oversubscribed, and with my and other people's help, it has an excellent partnership with a local manufacturing business. Should my right hon. Friend soon be talking to Ministers in the Department for Children, Schools and Families about accelerating the Building Schools for the Future programme, may I assure her that Staffordshire offers very good value for money in every sense of the word?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we should not underestimate the impact of good facilities on teachers, children and education as a whole. That is partly about the books, computers and facilities that we have invested in for teachers to use in the classroom, but it is also about the physical environment—the buildings in which people are able to learn. That is why we have allocated £9.3 billion for Building Schools for the Future and for academies; we want to see that money well spent.

Budget Deficit

Andrew Rosindell: What his most recent estimate of the UK budget deficit is; and what plans he has to reduce it.

Alistair Darling: I shall publish all my Budget forecasts next week.

Andrew Rosindell: The Chancellor will be aware that according to the European Commission's economic forecasts, there is to be a structural deficit of 2.8 per cent. for the United Kingdom, compared with western Europe's overall deficit of 1.1 per cent. On that basis, how will Britain be able to cope with an economic shock?

Alistair Darling: Actually, we are well placed to deal with current times of uncertainty. Debt levels are lower now than they were in the 1990s. Our interest rates are historically low and our economy is much more resilient than it was. Government borrowing was 7.8 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1993-94, whereas it was 2.3 per cent. in 2006-07. What would, of course, exacerbate the situation and make it extremely difficult for the UK would be to follow the hon. Gentleman's party's policies, as the Conservatives have in excess of £10 billion-worth of unfunded tax promises, not to mention other promises about prisons, the health service and even their green ISAs, where they had to admit that they had no idea how much those policies would cost.

Jim Devine: What contribution to reducing the national debt will be made by the privatisation of the Tote, as that decision will mean a reduction in choice for punters and invariably that one of the three big bookmakers will buy it at below market price?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are considering the sale of the Tote. I am not sure that I would agree with him that its sale would necessarily result in a reduction in choice, but that is the Government's policy and it remains our policy.

Richard Ottaway: Will the ceiling for the sustainable investment rule remain at 40 per cent. over the next economic cycle?

Alistair Darling: As I said to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) a few moments ago, the fiscal rules that we set up 10 years ago have served this country well and enabled us to protect public investment, which Conservatives were unable to do in their 18 years in government. Those rules are important and it is also important to ensure that we maintain public investment and long-term sustainable finances.

Justine Greening: The Institute for Fiscal Studies does not agree with the Chancellor's warm assessment of national debt levels. In fact, it recently concluded that it expects the sustainable investment rule to be broken. Given what he has just said about including Northern Rock and that having to react to that in national debt would be damaging to the economy, will he give the House a guarantee right now that the sustainable investment rule will not be broken?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Lady knows, before any Budget or, indeed, any pre-Budget report, many commentators make forecasts. She, like the IFS and everyone else, will have to wait until next week to see what our forecasts are. What I can tell her—she ought to pay attention to this—is that under the Conservatives' latest economic policy of having a rule stating that there cannot be borrowing when the economy is growing above trend, they would have had to have cut something like 85 per cent. of capital investment over the last 10 years. To pursue that policy would be to repeat the very mistakes that the Conservative party made when it was last in office. We are not going to do that. We have rules that ensure that we can have long-term sustainable growth, which is one of the reasons why our economy is in much better shape now than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Aviation

Norman Baker: If he will introduce fiscal measures to require the aviation sector to meet its environmental costs.

Angela Eagle: In the 2007 pre-Budget report, the Government announced their intention to replace air passenger duty with a duty payable per aeroplane. The reform will take effect on 1 November 2009 and will send better environmental signals, ensuring that aviation makes a greater contribution to covering its environmental costs as well as raising a fair level of revenue to support public services.

Norman Baker: I welcome the Government's adoption of that Lib Dem policy, but will the Minister express her concern at the fact that it is usually much cheaper to fly to Manchester than to take the train, although flying produces far more carbon emissions per passenger? Is it not time that the Government sought to remedy that market distortion and somehow ensure, by means of Treasury levers, that the cost of travelling equates far more closely to carbon emissions than to the abstract formula that currently applies?

Angela Eagle: We have invested a substantial amount—over £10 billion—in our railways, with more to come in Government programmes. As we proceed towards decarbonising our economy over the medium to long term, the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will have to be taken into account. That is why the Climate Change Bill is so important: it will make carbon budgets possible for the first time, thus enabling us to make decisions on all those issues.

David Taylor: According to its own calculations, aviation contributes about £13 billion to the United Kingdom's economy—less than 1 per cent. of GDP—yet its tax-free status produces for the industry about £10 billion, which is £50,000 for each of the 200,000 employees in the sector. On grounds of fairness, economics and environmental impact, is it not about time we addressed that long-standing issue?

Angela Eagle: Taxing aviation involves international issues, which are dealt with in the Chicago convention. The Government are trying to ensure that the convention is renegotiated; that is not an easy task. They are also pursuing—with some success, and hoping for a final decision soon—the inclusion of aviation in the European Union emissions trading system, which would begin to address the points that my hon. Friend has rightly made.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Alistair Carmichael: There are few things more worrying than being cheered by Tories.
	Does the Minister accept that, given the distances covered, a full plane is a very carbon-efficient way of transporting people around the highlands and islands? Does she also accept that the present system of per capita air passenger duty recognises the socio-economic importance of aviation to the remote communities in the highlands and islands, and will she ensure that it continues to be recognised when she constructs her new system?

Angela Eagle: Now that the hon. Gentleman has more time on his hands, I hope he will be able to respond to the public consultation on the design features of the tax. The consultation opened on 31 January, and will close on 24 April.

Brian Jenkins: As my hon. Friend said, this is an international cause—and rightly so—fought on European ground. There will be little effect on our pollution if we tax aviation fuel in this country when planes are buying their fuel in France and then flying over here. Will my hon. Friend put more emphasis on the fact that we need to work internationally to solve the problem?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are trying to gather an international consensus to amend the Chicago convention, which is now anachronistic. It is also why we are working very hard with our partners in Europe—with, I hope, some success—to ensure that aviation is included in the EU emissions trading system. That would mean that the problem of aeroplanes diverting to airports in Europe where the tax is not payable would not arise.

Graham Brady: I welcome the Minister's last response. Will she look in particular at air freight? That is a very competitive market, and there will be no environmental benefit at all if planes simply divert to near-European airports and there is then transhipment to the UK.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right. I have met representatives of the freight industry, who are engaging positively in our consultation, and we will take into account the issues to do with, and the effects of, the move to the plane tax, which his party supports, in its design.

Climate Change

Anne Snelgrove: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effects of climate change on the economy.

Alistair Darling: The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050 through both domestic and international action.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend may be aware of my private Member's Bill, which seeks to make public sector buildings more energy efficient and comes before the House on 25 April; all are welcome. Has he done any cost-benefit analysis on moving public sector buildings into the top quartile of energy performance?

Alistair Darling: I know that my hon. Friend is introducing that private Member's Bill, and she is right to raise the issue because it is important that at every single stage we do everything we can to reduce carbon emissions. I remind the House that through the Climate Change Bill that is currently passing through Parliament we will be the first Government in the world to impose a discipline on ourselves that will require us to meet the objectives we have set; there will not be room for Governments to escape the consequences of that. It follows, of course, that all buildings must play their part in ensuring that we emit less carbon as a result of heating and lighting them.

Graham Stuart: When the Government came to power 10 years ago, they promised to move taxation from "goods", such as employment, on to "bads" such as environmental emissions. They started along that line when first in power, but since then the percentage of taxes taken on environmental grounds has reduced over time. Will the Chancellor explain the rationale for that?

Alistair Darling: That is principally because the rate of increase in fuel duty was reduced after 2000. I recently listened to one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues castigating the Government for that, and I was waiting for him to say, "And a new Conservative Government would, if ever elected, at some stage put up taxes on fuel." I suspect that the Conservatives are not going to say that. When the Opposition actually come up with a coherent set of policies that would tackle the environmental challenge we face, they will have rather more credibility than they do currently.

Lynne Jones: In 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern told the Chancellor's predecessor that expenditure of approximately 1 per cent. of GDP would be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, which could result in the loss of between 5 and 20 per cent. of GDP. In 2008, what is the Chancellor's estimate of the proportion of the UK's GDP that will be spent on reducing our carbon dioxide emissions?

Alistair Darling: It is important that we follow Sir Nicholas Stern's advice. My hon. Friend is right that his findings, which I do not think have been disputed by any serious commentator, are that unless we are prepared to make the necessary investment now to tackle climate change, we will pay a heavy price in terms of loss of GDP not just in our country, but across the world. The Government will keep that under continuous review, and the sums that we are spending on tackling climate change are reflected in the additional money that has been given to Departments right across the piece. She is right that we must make the necessary investment over the next few years if we are to tackle climate change and ensure economic growth in the future.

Anne McIntosh: The Climate Change Bill does not currently make clear what the relationship will be between the UK emissions trading scheme and the European Union emissions trading scheme. Will the Chancellor give a commitment to the House that that will be made clear in the Bill before it reaches the House of Commons, and that that relationship will not make our industry less competitive than its competitors in the European Union?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Lady knows, that Bill will be coming before this House shortly, and she will doubtless be able to express her concerns to my ministerial colleagues at that time. She makes an important point; it is important that all of us meet our environmental obligations, and it would be wrong for us to discriminate against British businesses. Is that not all the more reason for us to work together in Europe? The sooner the rest of her Conservative colleagues realise that Europe is a reality that can benefit our country, not only in environmental terms, but in industrial terms, the better it will be for all of us.

Adrian Bailey: The progress that we have made on the emissions trading scheme is universally recognised. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the willingness of other countries' Finance Ministers to introduce other fiscal measures to tackle climate change?

Alistair Darling: The signs are encouraging. Finance ministries across the world realise that this issue is not something that they can leave to their colleagues who deal with energy or environmental matters. Tackling climate change and dealing with these problems must be central to everything that Treasuries across the world do. I shall give an example. At the previous meeting of the G7 countries in Tokyo, we reached agreement with Japan and the United States—other countries indicated their support—for setting up a fund to help tackle climate change, particularly in developing countries. That demonstrates how Finance Ministers' thinking has changed over the past few years; most of us realise that we must deal with the economics and the problems of climate change together.

HMRC

Bill Wiggin: What estimate he has made of the number of staff at HM Revenue and Customs who will receive bonus payments in 2007-08.

Jane Kennedy: A final figure for the number of staff at HMRC who will receive bonus payments in 2007-08 is not available, because the period has not yet ended. Bonuses were received by 35,916 staff in 2005-06 and 38,179 staff in 2006-07.

Bill Wiggin: Can the right hon. Lady confirm whether the amount expected by those people will be more than £23 million? In light of the losses of 25 million people's data on the twin discs and the Standard Life pensioners' details, is she not concerned that the payments will be seen as a reward for failure?

Jane Kennedy: I am not going to be drawn into speculation about what the estimate might be for the end of the year. We do not yet know how many members of staff will have earned a bonus. It is important to remember that, in line with what happens in the wider civil service, bonuses are paid to encourage and reward performance.
	Notwithstanding the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, HMRC's staff are working extremely hard to improve performance. They are making genuine progress in customer service—I am sure that many hon. Members would be prepared to acknowledge that that is happening in a number of fields, in particular tax credits. HMRC is internationally recognised as one of the leading tax administrations in the world, and when members of staff receive a bonus for their performance, it is because it has been very well earned. I do not accept that there is any indication of failure.

John Pugh: May I ask the Financial Secretary to give another estimate? What estimate does she make of the number of staff likely to lose their jobs as a result of the dramatic closure of tax offices in Merseyside and Southport?

Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the existing network of offices does not match how HMRC will need to operate in the future. Like any other public service, it needs to examine its operations in detail and compare its processes and procedures with those of the best in the world. That is what HMRC is doing. All the staff affected by last Friday's announcements will be able to consult their managers to ensure that changes affecting them are handled in the most appropriate way for their circumstances. I hope that he will acknowledge that HMRC has an agreement with the trade unions, which handles this process in a good way.

Mark Hoban: How will the HMRC bonus scheme deal with staff who apparently break rules designed to protect taxpayer confidentiality when posting tax returns between offices in order to cut costs and paperwork? Have no lessons been learned from discgate?

Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman has been studying the work that HMRC has been doing, he will know that it has implemented several changes already in response to lessons that were and are being learned as a result of the loss of the data. Opposition Members are seeking to exploit press speculation about what may or may not happen with bonuses. The HMRC staff who earn bonuses will have done so because of the efforts they have made to improve performance and to learn from experiences such as happened last year.

Health Expenditure

Ben Chapman: What recent assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of expenditure on primary health care.

Angela Eagle: The NHS will devolve 82 per cent. of its revenue budget to primary care trust control, giving more money to the front line than ever before next year. Local organisations supported within a robust national framework are best placed to secure value for money on local services, as they understand the real needs of their community.

Ben Chapman: I accept that value for money for patients is a primary determinant, but does my hon. Friend think that the controls on PCTs, both democratic and governmental, are sufficient to ensure that value for money is always obtained and that when, for example, GPs enter into joint ventures with the private sector for primary care premises, we can ensure that best value for health is obtained?

Angela Eagle: I believe that the system is robust. Local improvement finance trust schemes have already injected £1.3 billion of investment into primary care. In our area, as my hon. Friend will know, the Wirral PCT has just won a national award as the best in the country. Both his constituency's primary care facilities, and those in my constituency at the Victoria Central hospital, are achieving huge increases in investment, all of which was opposed by the Opposition.

Lynda Waltho: I recently had the privilege of opening a new £8.1 million primary care centre in my constituency, which left my constituents in no doubt that Labour is the party of the NHS. Will my hon. Friend continue to prioritise spending on health care so that they continue to receive the benefits of sound, costed investment, instead of being seduced by the promises and pipe dreams of the Opposition?

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. Over the past 10 years we have seen a 17 per cent. fall in cancer deaths and a 17 per cent. increase in operations, with 1 million more operations being done and 1.8 million more out-patient attendances. That is good value for money for the doubling of investment, in real terms, in the NHS that has happened under this Government, thanks to the success of our economic policy, which has provided money for us to invest in the things that people really care about.

Topical Questions

Philip Hollobone: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alistair Darling: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability of the economy, promote growth and manage the public finances.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer halt the proposed closure of the tax office in Kettering and its relocation to more expensive premises in Northampton? Given that it is Government policy to increase the local population by one third and create 46,200 jobs in north Northamptonshire by 2021, local residents and businesses need more locally accessible tax advice, not less.

Alistair Darling: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and hon. Members on both sides of the House could make the same point. As the Financial Secretary has just said, it is necessary to reorganise how HMRC does its business. That will mean in many places that the configuration of offices and services provided needs to change. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, he will no doubt make them known, but we all have to recognise that HMRC needs to adapt to be able to provide a service that is up to the mark. That will sometimes mean that office reconfiguration is necessary. If he wishes to make further representations, we will of course listen to them.

John Robertson: Many of my constituents are elderly pensioners and they have been hard hit by the energy price increases introduced this year. Does the Chancellor think that it is now time to levy the energy companies and use that money to increase the winter fuel allowance from £200 to £300, which would help the elderly in the winter, when they really need it?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend should also recognise that annual winter fuel payments, introduced by this Government, now total £2 billion. Warm Front, which has spent £1.6 billion on energy efficiency so far, has helped 1.4 million households to be more energy-efficient, including, I am sure, many in my hon. Friend's constituency. He will have to wait until next week for more clarity on those issues.

George Osborne: May I ask the Chancellor about the latest confusion at his Treasury: the future of the Barnett formula? Wendy Alexander says that the formula should be reviewed, and Lord Barnett says the same. The Prime Minister is dithering and, for once in his life, does not want a review. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor says that
	"the Government would need to engage on this issue...and to deal with concerns in English constituencies about the fairness of the current system."
	Does the Chancellor agree with the Lord Chancellor?

Alistair Darling: I wondered when we would hear from the hon. Gentleman, who has been uncharacteristically quiet this Question Time. As the House will know, the Unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament—the Liberals, Conservatives and Labour—have agreed to review arrangements under the Scotland Act 1998. As part of that, the Government have said that they will publish the way in which the Barnett formula has operated over the past 30 years. We are not currently reviewing it, but it will inform debate. There will have to be a lot of discussion. I hope that there will be agreement among those of us who believe that the Union is important. It is important that we have that debate, and I shall publish something—probably in the summer—that will contribute to it. I hope that all parties, the Conservatives included, who have supported the Barnett formula up to now will contribute to that.

George Osborne: I am sorry that I waited 45 minutes to intervene. I almost lost the will to live listening to the Chancellor for 45 minutes. The whole House is dreading his hour-long Budget speech next week.
	I have the minutes of the Cabinet Committee meeting in Downing street on 28 January, at which the Chancellor was present. I know that he is only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he did not express an opinion at all, according to the minutes. It says that there is concern in English constituencies about the Barnett formula and that the Prime Minister says that there needs to be a
	"period of debate and discussion before concrete proposals could be put forward."
	Does the Chancellor agree that if there is to be a period of debate and discussion, as the Prime Minister wants, at the very least the Treasury paper that he wants to produce should make a needs-based assessment of how spending will be allocated across the UK? That would give us the facts on which to have the discussion—and he could show some leadership on the issue.

Alistair Darling: I know that the hon. Gentleman has the minutes, as I understand that they were inadvertently widely circulated, not only within Government but without Government, too. As I said, it is important that people understand the way in which funding of the devolved Administrations has been made for almost 30 years. If we are to change that, we must discuss the implications not only for the devolved Administrations but for the whole UK. I intend to publish the position on the Barnett formula, probably in the summer, but there ought to be a debate. I hope that all parties will join in, especially those that are committed to maintaining the UK, which I believe is of the utmost importance.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to Ministers and Members alike? We have to get through the Order Paper, and I wish to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Ian Lucas: The UK's economic stability has helped to secure a £20 billion investment for EADS and Airbus in north-east Wales. Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in 1981, the largest ever single job-loss announcement was made in the same constituency? Does he also recall which party was in power?

Angela Eagle: It is absolutely true that unemployment tends to soar when the Conservatives are in office and plummet when Labour is in office. My hon. Friend's constituency is a case in point. There has been a 53 per cent. fall in unemployment in Wrexham and, as he points out, the new and very welcome investments in both Airbus and Toyota are bringing good, high-skilled jobs with good value-added capacity to the local economy. Unemployment is a Conservative phenomenon; employment is a Labour phenomenon.

Norman Baker: Will the Chancellor use the Budget next week to announce the removal of his poll tax on non-domicile qualifiers, on the basis that it hurts small, independent people greatly while doing nothing at all to tackle the rich oligarchs of whom he is so enamoured? Can we instead have a seven-year period in which non-doms pay no tax, after which they pay normal tax, the same as everybody else? Would that be a fairer solution?

Jane Kennedy: The aim of the residence and domicile changes that were announced in the pre-Budget report was to make the tax rules fairer while supporting UK competitiveness. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of the situation, but we do acknowledge that the special rules for non-domiciles make an important contribution to the overall attractiveness of the UK to international talent and investment. That is why those special rules are going to be staying in place.

Robert Goodwill: Farmers who are struggling under a mountain of Government-imposed paperwork are likely to be extremely irritated if rules on income shifting require them to keep detailed records, including timesheets, of the family members who make a great contribution to the survival of their businesses. What assessment have the Government made of the cost that will be imposed on farms and other small businesses by the proposed changes?

Angela Eagle: The rules on income shifting are out to consultation. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman has constituents who have worries about them, they will contact us and let us know. It is important for hon. Members to know that I have had many meetings with tax representatives who are worried about the matter, and we are listening. The idea of the rules on income shifting is to prevent people from gaining unfair advantages by shifting income from one person to another in a way that ordinary taxpayers cannot. That is what we are trying to get at, not genuine businesses that suffer from simplification or complication issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will talk to me about his constituents' worries if he wishes.

David Taylor: The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply's activity index for February was published yesterday, and showed the level rising to 54.0, the highest since 1996. That is a barometer of inflationary pressure and shows how right pensioners and others are to be concerned about inflation, as revealed by the consumer prices index. Will the Chancellor tell the House how our performance in relation to the CPI compares with the other countries in, for example, the G7, the euro area and the EU27?

Alistair Darling: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that inflation here is less than in the euro area and half that in the United States. The reason for that is that when we gave the Bank of England independence to deal with monetary policy and interest rates, we gave it a very clear remit. That has resulted in our inflation being historically low. We are in an infinitely better position than we were in the 1970s and 1980s.

David Heath: I imagine that all hon. Members continue to have constituents who have problems with tax credits. Several of my constituents have gone to the tax credit office in the past few weeks and been sent from there to me to sort out their tax credit problems. Is that an innovative way of giving underemployed Members of Parliament enough casework, or is it, as I suspect, a way of fobbing off my constituents by not dealing with their problems properly in the first instance?

Jane Kennedy: I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman's experience—

Patrick Cormack: Which experience?

Jane Kennedy: The experience of tax credits—given the other matter, he will have a lot more time to consider it. Will he write to me about the detail? I would like to look into the allegation, which is serious. I assure him that HMRC staff are working extremely hard through the transformation programme to improve the service to customers. He will have followed closely the changes that we have made in the past year or so, and I hope that in future hon. Members will not have experiences such as those that he describes.

Mark Pritchard: The Chancellor will know that the Post Office offers a very competitive savings account with a rate of 5.5 per cent. What advice would he give to sub-postmasters around the country who are seeing an outflow of those savings to an even more competitive savings account—that of Northern Rock, which is offering a rate of 6 per cent., subsidised by the taxpayer? Is that not a further blow to the post office network as a result of this Government's incompetence?

Alistair Darling: No. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier, when we discussed Northern Rock, but I made it clear that the board of directors of Northern Rock is looking at the products that it offers, with a view to ensuring that they are not competing unfairly against other financial institutions. As for the Post Office, the Government have made very substantial sums available to support it, which was not the case in the past.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to the Treasury for its recent reply that revealed that the former Chancellor's decision to sell the nation's gold reserves cost the country more than $8 billion net of interest, which is more than the losses incurred by rogue traders such as Jérôme Kerviel and Nick Leeson and a multiple of the losses on black Wednesday, and cost every household in this country more than £200. In the words of my constituent, Sonia Chohan, who has referred the former Chancellor to the "Guinness Book of Records", is not
	"Gordon Brown...the biggest rogue trader in history"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I wanted to get down the Order Paper, but it is getting difficult.

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is being completely absurd, and he knows it. If it is such a terrible policy, why on earth are many other countries divesting themselves of their gold reserves to get a more balanced portfolio? He knows as well as anyone else that the then Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, when he was asked about it in 1999, said that it was a perfectly reasonable portfolio decision that spread risk and reduced the risk of the national reserves by 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: The only one who has not been called: Mr. Loughton.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for your charity, Mr. Speaker.
	I need to declare a personal interest, because yesterday I had cause to ring the late-filing penalty helpline of the Inland Revenue, having filed my tax return and had the cheque cashed on 30 January. The very helpful lady I spoke with said that she could not help me because the address she had for me was 12 years out of date, and for my wife 17 years out of date, despite our filing tax returns every year. She ended up by saying, "As you are an MP, perhaps you will take away from this call the complete chaos we are in." Does the Minister share that view and, if she does, why are so many of her colleagues getting paid a bonus?

Jane Kennedy: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's report of his experience with the self-assessment process. I shall take it away and investigate, but I point out that, despite the problems on the day, HMRC dealt with a very large number of cases. As he knows, people always leave it until the last minute, and HMRC experiences a huge surge in the number of self-assessments. All I can say is that I will investigate the hon. Gentleman's case and look into exactly what reports he has made to HMRC in recent years.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 10 March will be:
	Monday 10 March—Estimates [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on Northern Rock and banking reform, followed by a debate on London Underground and the public-private partnership agreements.
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 11 March—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the European Union (Amendment) Bill.
	Wednesday 12 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 13 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 14 March—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 17 March will include:
	Monday 17 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.
	Tuesday 18 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
	Wednesday 19 March—Opposition day [7th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 20 March—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by motions to approve changes to Standing Orders and other House business.
	 [Monday 10 March: Treasury Committee, "The run on the Rock"—Fifth Report of Session 207-08, HC56-I.
	 Transport Committee, "The London Underground and the Public-Private Partnership Agreements"—Second Report of Session 2007-08, HC45.]

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. This morning the Home Secretary issued a written statement to the House on changes to the Government's policy on ID cards. She also made an oral statement to the media. Why has she not made an oral statement to the House?
	The Prime Minister's senior aide has now warned that closing post offices will have an appalling impact on rural areas. The Leader of the House promised my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) a debate on his Select Committee's report on the post office closure programme. When will we have that debate?
	Yesterday in the House, the Liberal Democrat leader flunked his first big test. He sat on the fence as a point of principle, divided his party after only a few weeks and created two classes of Front Bencher: those who have to resign for rebelling and those who do not. Weak, divided and vacillating—can we have a debate on the qualities of political leadership?
	Two days after the Prime Minister declared that child poverty was
	"the scar that demeans Britain",
	the latest report by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions found that the Government are set to miss their target of halving the number of children living in poverty, and that one in five families with a disabled child are so hard-up that they have to cut back on food. The Government talk about helping working families, but they have not done enough. May we have a topical debate on the Select Committee report?
	Six years ago, the Government set up a project to restore historical footpaths and rights of way in the countryside. Now the project has been scrapped. Not one single pathway has been reopened, and the project has cost the taxpayer £15 million. No wonder the Government are losing their way. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that waste of taxpayers' money?
	On Monday, we learned that the NHS in England is heading for a surplus of £1.8 billion this year, but accident and emergency departments and maternity services face cuts, and average waiting times have risen from 41 days to 49 days, so may we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health on improving patient care?
	May we have a debate on standards in public life? Last December, in the House, the right hon. and learned Lady supported Lee Jasper, the London Mayor's former director for equalities and policing, who has been referred to the police for channelling public funds into organisations run by friends and cronies. The Labour Mayor has said that he trusts Lee Jasper with his life and would reappoint him, and the Prime Minister will not admit that anything is wrong, so will the Leader of the House make a statement on whether the Mayor and Lee Jasper still have the support of the Government over the scandal?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on the Prime Minister's "Government of all the talents"? After repeatedly embarrassing the Prime Minister on his business and tax policies, we learn that the noble Lord Jones of Birmingham—Digby to his friends—is cutting loose. According to an e-mail, he has set up an office outside his Department. Where can he be found? At www.thebigblanket.co.uk. It is a move from the big tent to the big blanket, but with this circus, I am surprised that it is not to the big top. The Government have lost their moral compass and their way, and cannot deliver on their promises. When will they start treating the House with the respect that it deserves?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady asked about the Home Secretary's announcement on ID cards. The policy on them has not changed; the Home Secretary has announced the rolling out of the policy on ID cards. It makes sense for passports to have biometric data and for visas for foreign nationals to include such data. It also makes sense to extend ID cards next year to people working in secure areas of airports, as the Home Secretary has announced today. If there were a question of extending them on a compulsory basis, the House knows that that would be a matter for its consideration. The Home Secretary made it absolutely clear that there would be a roll-out on a voluntary basis, and that is what she is putting in place.  [Interruption.] It is not a change of policy, so it does not require a statement in the House.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the post office closure programme, and there will be a debate on that matter in due course. She also asked for a debate about the qualities of political leadership; I suggest that she makes that a topic for an Opposition day debate.
	We made child poverty a priority when the question of poverty was not on the agenda of the previous Conservative Government. Having a strong economy and high employment so that children are not brought up in workless households, as well as increasing financial support for low-income families, is the best way to tackle child poverty. We will press on with our commitment to tackling child poverty and we are glad that at last the Conservative party has joined us in that commitment.
	The right hon. Lady talked about the question of footpaths, and I will refer that to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
	There are not cuts in maternity services or accident and emergency; there has been record investment in our health services, including maternity services and accident and emergency.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned the Mayor of London. During the past eight years, while Ken Livingstone has been Mayor, London has been transformed for the better. At the elections in May, there will be a clear choice for Londoners.  [Interruption.] Yes, there will. It will be the man from Oxfordshire offering cuts in the police and in transport and risking London's economy versus Ken Livingstone, who will put more police in all London neighbourhoods and who has massively increased public transport. When it comes to allegations of criminal offences, the police investigate, not the House, and the courts judge, not the House. That is not the business of the House—nor should it be.

David Chaytor: In the autumn Budget statement, the Chancellor announced the launch of the competition for the carbon capture and storage demonstration project. Since then, an application has been made to build a new coal-fired power station—without any form of clean-coal, let alone carbon-capture, technology—at Kingsnorth in Kent. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a clear contradiction between the expansion of new coal-fired power generation without carbon capture and the aspirations in the Climate Change Bill to reduce carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent. and possibly more? Would not the best way forward be to hold a public inquiry into that new application, and may we have a debate so that the contradictions can be explored?

Harriet Harman: In the Climate Change Bill there is not an aspiration but a requirement by law to reduce carbon emissions, and our energy policy will make sure that that is the case. We want more carbon capture and storage, which is important, and we want to make sure that our carbon emissions are down overall. That will be kept under review.

Simon Hughes: May I say to the Leader of the House that in the mayoral election, as in all elections, there are more than two choices?  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Simon Hughes: Before we have the Budget statement next week, may we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a debate to make sure that the Treasury has understood the concerns about the collapse in the bingo industry and the need for changes in tax regime to ensure that clubs in all our constituencies, which have hundreds of thousands of members, have a chance of survival?
	On Monday night in the debate on the estimates, we have a debate on the failed private finance initiative scheme for Metronet. Will it be possible to debate then or soon afterwards the other apparent PFI scandal? Not only do we appear to have non-domiciled Members of the House of Lords, but it seems that because of the PFI scheme that the now Prime Minister brought in, the Home Office, the Treasury and other buildings have been built under PFI and the owners have moved to tax havens such as the Channel Islands and are not paying taxes. That is clearly scandalous and entirely inconsistent with other Government policy.
	As we come to the end of the financial year, we gather that during the financial year the health service has made a profit of a sum approaching £2 billion. If that is the case, may we have a debate to explain how, at the same time as the health service is making a profit, many trusts are unable to fulfil waiting list targets and probably every local authority in England, including the one that the Leader of the House and I represent, must make cuts in social services for the vulnerable? The Department appears to be making a profit and at the same time pulling money in from local government, which is caring for people.
	Can the right hon. and learned Lady explain the reports that there will be a cut in the budget for science and research, potentially leading to the closure of our seven radiotelescopes, including the world-renowned Jodrell Bank telescope, which costs only £2.5 million to sustain—the same as the expenses of the members of the Cabinet?
	I have asked the Leader of the House three times, as Commonwealth day approaches, whether we may have a debate on the Commonwealth. I hope she will be able to give me a positive reply, given that Commonwealth day is next Monday.
	I also ask, as last week, whether we could have a debate on Home Office matters, the citizenship Green Paper, and the immigration rules, which have come into force even though there is much opposition to them, and whether, as is illustrated by the case reported on the front page of one of our national papers today about a constituent of mine, the Home Office is still insisting that gay people should be sent back to countries such as Iran.

Dennis Skinner: I think they sacked the wrong one.

Harriet Harman: As I said to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) last week, deportation of people to their country of origin is a matter for the rules and regulations laid down by the House and for the interpretation of the courts. People should not be sent back to their country of origin if they face torture or death there. If he wants to raise that individual case, perhaps he will write to the Home Secretary.
	The hon. Gentleman raised three issues which I suggest he should raise in the Budget debate—tax in relation to PFI, our increasing investment in the national health service, and levels of investment in an area of great concern and importance to the Government, science and research. Those are three topics which he and his hon. Friends will have ample time to debate during the Budget day debate.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of bingo, which I noticed caused a great deal of mirth and laughter among members of the official Opposition. I agree that bingo is an important matter, so I will draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is hoping that on the Liberal Democrat Benches he will be able to declare full house.

Jimmy Hood: I begin by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend. I see on the Order Paper today, under the heading "Memorandum", that the Welsh Grand Committee is meeting on 26 March. She will recall that I raised the matter of the Scottish Grand Committee some time ago. Will she revisit that matter with her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scotland Office, and ask them to stop colluding with the abstaining Liberals and the separatist nationalists to deprive me of my right as a Labour Back Bencher to attend my Scottish Grand Committee to ask Ministers about issues relevant to my constituency?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he has raised it with me on a previous occasion. I apologise for not getting back to him about it earlier, and I will do so expeditiously.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of the House think that we could have a debate in the near future on the naming of political parties? She will be aware that in 19th-century America there was a party known as the Mugwumps. They were so called because they sat with their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other, and the iron entered into their soul. Would that not be a better description for that lot down there?

Harriet Harman: That is not a matter for the business of the House. The naming of political parties and how they appear on the ballot paper is decided by this House under the Electoral Administration Act 2006.

James McGovern: May we have a debate in Government time about the Security Industry Authority? This Government can be justifiably proud of their record in helping people move off benefit and back into work. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who want work, and have had lucrative offers of work, but cannot take them up because, despite having applied and paid for licences, the SIA has not yet processed their applications—for as long as 18 weeks in some cases. A debate would surely help us to determine what has gone wrong with that organisation, and help us to correct it.

Harriet Harman: That is an important regulatory authority, but it needs to do its work promptly. I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and ensure that action is taken so that my hon. Friend is written to, in order to deal with that point.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: In the last few weeks, tuberculosis has reached parts of my constituency that have not had it for 60 years. Farmers have recently heckled the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs badly. May we have a debate in this House about what we will do about TB? There is surely enough evidence to warrant the taking of decisions by Government. Now that the disease is inexorably moving faster and faster across parts of Britain, is it not time to sort it out?

Harriet Harman: The question of bovine tuberculosis is kept under serious review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the question of whether culling badgers is the right way to deal with it is a scientific one. The matter should not be decided on party political terms; there is great concern about animal welfare, and that we should have security and confidence in the dairy industry and agriculture. That is something about which my ministerial colleague has given evidence to the Select Committee, and the matter remains under review.

Elliot Morley: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that concern has been expressed about the dramatic rise in energy prices for electricity and gas. My constituent, Mr. Peter Seaman, recently came to see me to say that apart from the significant rise in base prices, changes in the structure of tariffs had resulted in a 44 per cent. increase in some of the tariffs in his bill. May we have time for a debate on those issues, recognising that although oil prices have risen—something that has underpinned this process—there have been other changes, such as a big increase in the profits of electric companies? Ofgem estimates that those companies will make a potential £1 billion windfall profit due to the fact that they got carbon credits and did not pay for them.

Harriet Harman: The question of people being able to afford their fuel bills and keep themselves warm is of great importance, and our winter fuel payments of £200 for the over-60s and £300 for the over-80s makes a contribution. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, however. We want to be sure that there is fair competition and a fair way for companies to go about their business in the energy industry. As he said, that includes the structure of tariffs, and metering as well. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, Ofgem is looking into those matters; they are matters of great national importance.

Angus MacNeil: World war two lasted more than five and a half years. This month marks five years since the Iraq war started. The Nobel prize winner Joe Stiglitz reckons that it has cost $6 trillion. The Library says that it has cost the UK about £2.5 million a day. May we have a debate with a view to setting up a Committee of inquiry into this war, which may have cost half a million lives?

Harriet Harman: There has been much discussion in this House about the stage at which there should be proper consideration of our involvement and use of armed force in Iraq, and of our involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. For the moment, troop numbers are being reduced, the Iraqi army and police are taking over their responsibilities with the support of British troops, and we shall no doubt return to the question of a review at a future date.

Marsha Singh: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time to debate the current crisis in Gaza? While we all deplore the rocket attacks by Hamas, the killing of innocent civilians, including women and children by the score, the economic blockade and the failure to let medical supplies through make up a completely disproportionate response. It is not only disproportionate but appalling. Israel is strangling Gaza to death.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend expresses strongly the great concern throughout the House and within the Government about the very grave situation in Gaza. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary called for restraint earlier this week. We continue to give economic and aid support to Gaza, but it is unacceptable that so many in Gaza have no option but to live their lives dependent on food aid. We work as part of the Quartet because the only solution is to try to make progress on the peace process.

John Penrose: Before the promised debate on post offices, will the Leader of the House undertake to look into the question of the three post offices in the Palace of Westminster itself? At a time when many of our constituents are facing problems with post offices being closed throughout the country, does she agree that it cannot be right for MPs not to face the application of the same disciplines to the facilities that we enjoy in this place? If one or two of them are to be closed, would she consider recommending to the Post Office that they are taken instead of some of the six under threat in my constituency?

Harriet Harman: I am not aware of how the post office services in the House of Commons fit into the general local postal services consultation, but I will endeavour to find out, and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Anne Moffat: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that as we sit in the House today, there is a demonstration outside to support Justice for Colombia? Atrocities are happening in that country, and trade unionists are disappearing from the streets. May we have a debate on that issue?

Harriet Harman: I will take that as a suggestion for a topical debate. Many of us in this House support the campaigns for justice, freedom and human rights in Colombia.

John Randall: Would the Leader of the House consider a debate on London? My constituents in the suburbs have been facing increased demands for taxes from the Mayor, which seem to be squandered on what are at best dubious projects by advisers who are now subject to police inquiries. There are many other issues to consider, such as the closure of post offices. May I urge that we have a debate on what is happening in London?

Harriet Harman: On Monday we have a debate on the London Underground, but I will consider whether there should be a further debate on London as one of the topical debates.

Brian Iddon: On Wednesday of last week the Government published their second 10-year drugs strategy—in a written statement, unfortunately. Yesterday the United Nations launched its International Narcotics Control Board annual report for 2007. Please may we have a debate in Government time on that important policy area soon?

Harriet Harman: We have had several discussions through statements and oral questions in the House on the drugs strategy, but I will take my hon. Friend's proposal to consider that important issue again as a suggestion for a topical debate.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the Leader of the House explain or make a statement on the disrespect shown to the House in the way in which Departments answer named day questions? The office of the Leader of the House has an exemplary record in that every question in the past five years has been answered in five days. However, may we have an explanation of why the Treasury's replies on time have fallen from 79 to 51 per cent. and those of the Department for Communities and Local Government have fallen from 87 to 49 per cent., and why the Department for Children, Schools and Families does not even keep records, claiming that such information could be provided only at disproportionate cost?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is fundamental to the House's ability to scrutinise the Government that Members can table questions, which are answered fully and promptly. I want to place on record my thanks to our officials who help us to reply in such a timely manner to parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Procedure Committee is looking into parliamentary questions. I will certainly raise his points about individual Departments with the Committee on behalf of the House.

Paul Flynn: When may we debate the need to prosecute GlaxoSmithKline for suppressing the truth about drug trials, which show that the drug Seroxat is not only useless but produces lethal side effects that have killed many people? The matter was last debated in the House in 2004.
	The regulatory authority has failed to control GlaxoSmithKline. Such a debate would be an opportunity to congratulate "Panorama", Charles Medawar of Social Audit, the Seroxat Users Group, the charity Mind and certain hon. Members on a campaign which has sadly been ignored for five years.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health issued a written ministerial statement this morning on the matter. The Government prosecutors have decided that there is no realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction in the case and there will therefore be no prosecution. However, the process of investigation has revealed serious weaknesses in EU legislation as it stood and, as the written ministerial statement sets out, some immediate steps to remedy the situation are being taken, including through secondary legislation.

Nigel Evans: Is it possible to hold a debate on tourism next week, given that the Minister for Culture, Media and Sport decided on Tuesday to attack one of the great British institutions, the Proms, because not enough people from different backgrounds felt comfortable with it? Why did she stop there? Why did she not also attack Ascot, Wimbledon, the boat race, Henley regatta, Cowes week and so on? The list is endless. The Notting Hill carnival and the Glastonbury festival are not everybody's cup of tea, but all the events together help make Britain one of the greatest cultural centres in the world.

Harriet Harman: The Government have done a great deal to support culture and the arts in this country. The Proms has been a great success and it is important that the organisers try to involve and reach out to new audiences, as they do through Proms in the Park and the Electric Proms. The Government want all our great arts institutions to do that, and that is why, for example, we introduced free entry to museums. We want to support our long-standing cultural institutions but also enable them to reach out to new audiences.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the development of housing on brownfield sites, following the decision of General Electric, one of the biggest companies in the world, to sell its site in Rushy Mead in Leicester but to put a restrictive covenant on it so that it can be used only for commercial and employment purposes, not housing? The site is contaminated, but should not companies that occupy sites for more than five decades clean them up before selling them on? May we have a debate on that matter?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which touches on Government concern for a good environment and more housing. He has raised the matter on several occasions and is campaigning on it. I will bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers.

Paul Goodman: This year, money for the Government's preventing violent extremism scheme, which is paid to local authorities, has been ring-fenced. It has recently become clear that money in future years will not be ring-fenced. If it is not ring-fenced, some—perhaps many—councils may use it for other purposes. If they do that, it implies the disappearance nationally of the whole scheme. Has the Leader of the House any information that a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government will come to the House to update us on that interesting development?

Harriet Harman: It is important and right that, having set out priorities and increased year on year the funding available in real terms to local authorities, we should allow them more power to make decisions about the way in which they spend resources locally. While we ensure that they have more opportunities to make decisions about how to spend money locally, it is also important to keep the position under review.

David Drew: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about the need for a drugs strategy. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has seen yesterday's United Nations report. We should view our sentencing policy with some shame because we appear to have three verdicts: innocent, guilty and celebrity. That cannot be right for drugs policy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend provide an urgent debate to consider sentencing policy? It cannot come a moment too soon.

Harriet Harman: I take my hon. Friend's point. We want to ensure that we have good prevention policies, enable those who become drug abusers to get off drugs and support those who work with people who have fallen prey to addiction as well as having good police operations in respect of suppliers. The issue concerns hon. Members of all parties and I will consider it for a topical debate in due course.

James Clappison: In response to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for a debate on child poverty, the Leader of the House noticeably made certain statements but did not show a willingness to put them to the test in a debate. Given that, last week, the Government smuggled out an admission that they are unlikely to meet their child poverty targets and that this country has the highest number of children in Europe growing up in workless households, is not it right to hold such a debate as soon as possible?

Harriet Harman: Next week, there will be a Budget debate. When the Conservatives were in government, poverty was scarcely mentioned and tackling it was certainly not a public policy objective. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what the Budget says, then he is free to join us in that debate in expressing our concern to tackle child poverty.

Barry Gardiner: It is now almost one year since Mr. Moudud Ahmed, the former Prime Minister and Vice-President of Bangladesh, was seized by armed military personnel at his family home at the age of 67 and held under emergency powers. I understand that our Prime Minister is to meet Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the chief civilian adviser to the military Government in Bangladesh, on 16 March. Will my right hon. and learned Friend raise the case of Mr. Moudud Ahmed with the Prime Minister and ask him to mention it on that occasion?

Harriet Harman: I undertake to speak to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and ask him what action can be taken about Mr. Moudud Ahmed.

Evan Harris: The historic vote in Parliament last night on the abolition of the blasphemy laws will be welcomed by hon. Members of all parties because it will allow publishers, artists and others to use freedom of expression, including showing disrespect to or even ridiculing religious belief. Why did Baroness Andrews read into the record a letter that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had written to the Archbishop, saying that the vote should not be viewed as a licence for the expression of disrespect towards faith or those who hold religious beliefs? Will the Leader of the House give notice of when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will come to the House to give us a lecture or exposition on why the Government feel that they should tell us to whom we should and should not show disrespect, and which specific religions should be especially privileged in not having disrespect shown to them?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity to discuss the hon. Gentleman's points when we consider Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on how best to encourage young non-academic people into the world of politics? British politics is grossly over-represented by the academic world. If we are to be truly a party of the people, recognising all the talents, that should be reflected in our political structures, which should not be left to be monopolised by the toffs.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises two important points. We need to ensure that more young people have skills as well as academic qualifications and training, and we need to have more young people involved in politics. That is why it is important that we should have young councillors, as well as young Members of Parliament. I strongly support the action that we took to reduce to 18 the age at which people can stand for elected office in council and parliamentary elections.

George Young: The Leader of the House has announced that there will be four days' debate on the Budget after the Budget statement, which I welcome. However last autumn, after the comprehensive spending review and the pre-Budget report, which are equally important statements of Government policy, we had no debate at all. Is there not a case for a better balance of financial debates throughout the year?

Harriet Harman: I think that there is. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman approves of the amount of time that has been allocated for the Budget. The question whether we have the right balance across the year for debates not just on financial matters, but on defence and foreign affairs, will be considered.

David Taylor: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), may I make a bid for a topical debate on early-day motion 1108 on the private finance initiative and tax havens, co-sponsored by myself?
	 [That this House is concerned to discover that the ownership of billions of pounds worth of public assets, which are reported to include the Treasury offices in Whitehall, the new Home Office, the Inland Revenue's estate, 42 per cent. of the Colchester Garrison building, 90 per cent. of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital, 85 per cent. of the Central Middlesex Hospital as well as schools in Gwynedd, the Health and Safety Laboratory in Buxton, Exeter Crown Court, 50 per cent. of a project for new schools in the Highlands and 26 per cent. of the Norwich and Norfolk Hospital have all been transferred to offshore tax havens in order to avoid tax obligations; urges HM Treasury to require the return of all such assets to ownership in the UK where tax obligations can be properly enforced; and suggests that all private finance initiative (PFI) contracts which do not return assets to the UK should be abrogated, and that all future contracts should specify that neither the ownership nor the company operating the PFI can operate from a tax haven in order to avoid their legitimate tax obligations in the UK, and that this policy decision should be supplemented by a requirement that all competitors for Government and local authority contracts should be registered in the UK and pay tax in the UK.]
	Our early-day motion demonstrates clearly that PFI contracts are prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence for the taxpayers, citizens and public sector workers in this country. Could we have a debate on that, to explain why, at least from the Government's point of view, those who bid for Government and local authority contracts should not be registered in the United Kingdom or pay tax in the United Kingdom, which is not happening anywhere near often enough?

Harriet Harman: Those are important points. We want to ensure fair treatment in tax matters. The issue is one that hon. Members might look to raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget debate.

Bob Neill: May we have a debate on the operation of the Greater London Authority Acts? If an employee of any other local authority in this country failed to declare that they were a director of a company that had applied to that authority for a grant, there would be a formal report to the authority's monitoring officer and disciplinary action. In the case of Mr. Jasper, a political appointee under section 67 of the 1999 Act, we now know that although the Mayor was notified of his failure to declare, no formal report was made to the monitoring officer and no disciplinary action followed. Does the Leader of the House accept that it is necessary to explain why proper probity does not appear to reign at city hall, as opposed to other local authorities?

Harriet Harman: There are proper rules for accountability and probity in the Greater London authority, which were passed by the House. The GLA operates under the rules that were laid down by the House. That was the agreement that was made and they are the rules that are enforced.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the right hon. and learned Lady accept that we need an urgent debate in the House on matters relating to London, particularly the antics of the Mayor, Mr. Livingstone, in the light of his adviser and his declared intention, apparently, to reappoint that adviser, despite the scandal and the police investigation? Is it not time that the House debated that issue?

Harriet Harman: It is very important that, under the privilege available to Members of the House of the Commons, unsubstantiated allegations are not thrown around as part of a build-up to an election campaign. For all the efforts of Conservative Members, people in London will ask themselves at the election on 1 May, "Do we want somebody who has never had anything to do with London, who is the Member of Parliament for a constituency in Oxfordshire and who had never asked any parliamentary questions about London until he became the Tory candidate? Is he the right person to be Mayor of our great capital city, or should we have Ken, born and bred in London, who has seen London and Londoners prosper over the past 10 years?" We will see you at the ballot box.

Ben Wallace: Yesterday, under the cover of the referendum vote, the Government sneaked out a statement saying that they would fail to meet not one, but two consecutive manifesto promises, namely to privatise the Tote and to give it to racing. Will the Leader of the House see whether the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport can come to the House and explain why the Government took an ordinary, viable business, nationalised it, bungled its privatisation and then admitted that they would have to sell it on the open market, thereby betraying the people of Wigan, the racing industry and the electorate, to whom they had made those promises?

Harriet Harman: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seek to raise the matter as an oral question on Monday.

David Evennett: I should like to add my voice in support of the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made for a general debate on London. I raised the issue with the right hon. and learned Lady some time ago and she promised that we would have one. There are so many issues in London to be debated, including the proposed closure of another post office in my constituency, in the Brampton ward, crime, housing and the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) raised. May I urge the right hon. and learned Lady to reinstate the annual debate on London as a matter of urgency?

Harriet Harman: I will consider London for a forthcoming topical debate, because I know that hon. Members who represent London constituencies will want to discuss making even further progress on reducing congestion, increasing the amount of affordable housing available, increasing police numbers and reducing crime. A great deal has been achieved in London and we want to make further progress, continuing with a Labour Mayor.

Michael Penning: In 1997, when the Labour Government sadly came to power, there was a consultant-led maternity unit in Hemel Hempstead hospital. That unit was quickly closed. In 2001, a birthing unit was opened in an attempt to protect the then Labour MP from losing his seat. Straight after the 2005 election, when I was elected, that was closed, too. It is therefore not true that no cuts have been made in maternity services, as the Leader of the House said. They have. We must have a debate on maternity services, because cuts are being made throughout the country.

Harriet Harman: We want to ensure that we give mothers more choice about whether to have their babies at home, that we improve community midwife services and that we improve in-patient services, including specialist neonatal services. Nobody should imagine that maternity services were perfect when we came into government in 1997 and needed no change. That was far from the case. We needed change and improvement. There needed to be more midwives trained and more investment in the health service, and that is indeed what has happened.

Nick Hurd: May I put it to the Leader of the House that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was wholly inadequate? We know that in the Mayor's office rules are being broken. We know that there are serious questions about how local government structures set up by the House are working in practice. We were promised a beacon of transparency; we have got the stench of corruption. May I press her to do more than just consider a debate on the governance of London and confirm that we will have one?

Harriet Harman: I do not have anything further to add to my response to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). There are rules in place, and they are quite clear. They were decided by the House and they will be enforced.

Andrew MacKay: Following the serious and well-publicised problems in Scotland last May, when we had multiple elections, will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box next week to assure us that the European and local elections—and, possibly, a general election next year—will not all take place on the same day, causing confusion?

Harriet Harman: The Scottish elections were the subject of a review, and action has been taken in respect of that. The question of future elections will be considered by the Government, and also by the Electoral Commission. The Ministry of Justice will also shortly produce its review of the different electoral systems. One of our concerns has been to review how the different proportional systems that we have introduced have operated in European elections, in the devolved Assemblies and in councils in Scotland.

Anne McIntosh: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read the Work and Pensions Committee report on eradicating child poverty, which was published on Monday? Paragraph 55 states that the gender pay gap is contributing to child poverty and that some Jobcentre Plus advisers are pointing women—particularly lone parents—into low-paid employment. That is unacceptable on a day when we are celebrating international women's day. Will the right hon. and learned Lady therefore confirm that we can have a topical debate on child poverty in the next week or two, so that we can discuss the contents of the report? What has happened to topical debates over the past week or two? They seem to have dropped off the Order Paper.

Harriet Harman: The Government will issue a response to the Select Committee report in due course. Of course it is the case that low pay and unequal pay among women contribute to child poverty. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the national minimum wage, which has done more than anything to narrow the pay gap, and has seen the pay gap between men and women at the bottom of the labour market all but close. I suggest that the hon. Lady seeks an opportunity to speak in the debate on international women's day, which will follow immediately after business questions.

Andrew Selous: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the way in which rail franchises are granted, particularly in respect of disabled passengers? My constituent, Adrienne Staniford, used to be able to take her wheelchair on to Silverlink trains. Now, London Midland has told her that she is not allowed to take the same wheelchair on to identical rolling stock. The Government are telling us, quite properly, that we need to get more disabled people into work, so why should my constituent lose her job when the trains are the same and the wheelchair is identical? Why was this not spotted during the franchise process? Is this not a disgrace?

Harriet Harman: Everyone will sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to look into that individual case and to seek a solution for it. As to whether further action needs to be taken, we want to be absolutely sure that disabled people do not suffer discrimination, whether on transport or in any other services, and whether or not it affects their opportunity to work. I hope that he will join us in supporting the further measures to tackle inequality and discrimination in the equality Bill that we will introduce later this year.

Bill Wiggin: Today, for the first time in 150 years, members of Her Majesty's Coastguard have gone on strike. Responsibly, those manning helicopters are still at work. May we have a debate in Government time, or even an oral statement, so that we can understand how this unfortunate situation has come about?

Harriet Harman: It is an unfortunate situation, and we all hope that a settlement of the dispute will be reached shortly. In the meantime, we can be reassured that contingency arrangements are in place to ensure that no lives are at risk as a result of the dispute.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on small businesses, in recognition of the fact that such debates used to take place at least once a year as a matter of course? Given that 99 per cent. of companies employ fewer than 100 people, and that they account for 50 per cent. plus of the private sector work force and generate no less than two fifths of our national output, would it not be timely for us to have a debate in this Chamber to seek to establish how best we can create a balanced and equitable legal framework that requires companies to do what is right by their employees and by the community while simultaneously facilitating a situation in which they can still be the seedcorn of our prosperity?

Harriet Harman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could raise those issues in the Budget debate if he so wished. I agree that small and medium-sized businesses have played a major part in the growing prosperity of this country and the growing strength of the economy. I should also mention that the Modernisation Committee is looking at the question of departmental debate days, to which he referred.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on Iran? Does the Leader of the House believe that it is a coincidence that Iran has continued to progress its nuclear programme while also progressing its long-range ballistic missile programme?

Harriet Harman: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Philip Hollobone: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give due and proper consideration to early-day motion 1127, on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill?
	 [That this House believes that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill raises important issues of conscience which merit the full consideration of the whole House; notes during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 the issue of embryo research, abortion and Schedule 2 was debated and voted on in a committee of the whole House; further notes that the Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryo (Draft) Bill noted that 'when what is now the 1990 Act was before Parliament the issue of embryo research was put to a free vote' considered 'that the creation and use of inter-species embryos for research purposes is a comparable issue and recommended that the issue be put to a free vote; and calls upon the Leader of the House and usual channels to ensure that a committee of the whole House is arranged to consider issues of conscience arising from the Bill.]
	The motion was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and calls for the Committee stage of the Bill to be held on the Floor of the House so that the important issues raised by the legislation can be discussed by as many Members as possible.

Harriet Harman: We are considering how to ensure that that very important Bill can be properly debated in the House, including perhaps having part of the Committee stage upstairs in Committee and part on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bill has now concluded all its stages in the Lords and is now waiting to be brought to this House for its Second Reading. We regard the Bill as immensely important. We want our scientific community to be able to make progress and to contribute to finding treatments and preventions for major health issues such as Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and spinal injuries. This is a very important Bill, and we want it to be fully debated in the House.

Henry Bellingham: Thank you for getting us all in, Mr. Speaker.
	The right hon. and learned Lady will recall that, a few weeks ago, I raised the sad case of Simon Mann, who was unlawfully kidnapped and taken in chains to Equatorial Guinea. Perhaps we should have a wider debate on the plight of British and EU citizens who are unlawfully imprisoned abroad. More specifically, may I ask whether our envoy in Equatorial Guinea has been to see Simon Mann? Does Mr. Mann have access to legal assistance? Is he being humanely and fairly treated?

Harriet Harman: I know that our consular officials have been involved in that case. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise those wider issues, may I suggest that he put in for an Adjournment debate on the case?

Mark Field: While I agree with the Leader of the House that matters that are subject to a police investigation should rightly be outside the scope of parliamentary debate, it is still a fact that the Government office for London administers huge sums of public money to be given to grant-giving organisations and to the London Development Agency. Given the importance of this matter to all London constituents—including hers and mine—in the run-up to the election on 1 May, I believe that this is the right time to have a broad debate on the way in which the Greater London authority operates and the way in which the mayoral advisers are appointed, how they operate, and how they can properly be scrutinised. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that issue. She will have gathered from earlier questions that a number of Members feel extremely strongly about it.

Harriet Harman: I think all London Members feel extremely strongly about those issues, and I have said that I will consider making London the subject of a topical debate. We are all pleased to know about the bigger investment in police in London and in agencies that provide London with important services across the board. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in mine, grants and other financial support have been provided for small voluntary organisations that do so much to keep communities together. I would like to pay tribute to the work put into building and supporting communities in London, particularly those in inner London.

International Women's Day

Harriet Harman: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of International Women's Day.
	I am proud to open the debate both as the Minister for Women and Equality and as Leader of the House. I will speak briefly, as many women will be speaking in this debate and I also see a number of men in their places, waiting to speak. There is no doubt that in today's House of Commons, there is not only a band of strong women but even some men who could justifiably be seen as honorary members of the sisterhood—although we will have to wait until we hear them speak before we form a final judgment on that point.

Nigel Evans: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: In this debate, as we mark international women's day, I want us to recognise the transformation that women in the House of Commons have brought about. Women MPs have not only changed the face of British politics, as they—we—have also changed its agenda, which needed to change because women's lives are changing. The world of work is changing and family life is changing, too. If we are to back up families as they bring up children, earn a living and care for older relatives, we need to understand and represent women as well as men.
	Today, women regard themselves as equal citizens and expect to share in decisions, both at home and at work. A Parliament or a party that is male-dominated is an outdated relic—and that is certainly what this House of Commons was like when I joined it 25 years ago.

Nigel Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: I will.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful. On this day of all days, as the Minister quite rightly tries to attract more women into politics, will she pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher, the first woman Prime Minister of this country, who proved by her actions that the very top job in this country is open to all, irrespective of gender?

Harriet Harman: As I was about to say, I think that the importance of women in the House of Commons and in government is not that we are here for our own sake, but that we are here to deliver for other women. Margaret Thatcher did not deliver for other women— [Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Anne Snelgrove: rose—

Harriet Harman: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove).

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that we are here to deliver for women, but I can tell her one thing that Margaret Thatcher delivered for me. I was selected to fight my first election on the night that Margaret Thatcher resigned—and I am very proud of that fact.

Harriet Harman: When I first joined this House of Commons 25 years ago, I was one of only 10 Labour women MPs. At that time, there were only 13 Tory women MPs. For the Tories, however, the march towards gender equality has yet to get under way: they have moved from having 13 Tory women MPs 25 years ago to 17 today, while we in the Labour party have made great strides, as Labour women MPs are 96 strong, coming from Scotland, Wales and England.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Labour women MPs range from those with great experience, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport as well as being a mother and grandmother, to the fresh-faced new arrivals who entered in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: When I popped into the Whips Office last night, I noticed that it was considerably improved by the presence of two lovely new babies, so many congratulations to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), and to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel).

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: My point is not just that it is possible for women to be MPs and Ministers and have children and grandchildren, but that it is necessary for the House to have such women who are mothers and grandmothers if we are to understand, speak up for and deliver for women, as well as men. That is what this Government are striving to do.

Julie Kirkbride: rose—

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Patricia Hewitt: rose—

Harriet Harman: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Patricia Hewitt: I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Can she estimate how long it will take, at the current rate of progress, before there is equal representation of women and men in this House generally, but particularly on the Conservative Benches?

Harriet Harman: Many hundreds of years! I shall come on to that point.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: I think that we have made a great deal of progress and while we should be gratified about it, we should not be grateful for it. We are not doing women a favour, but delivering long overdue rights. Although we have made great strides, we have much further to go.
	We have introduced a national minimum wage, which has just about ended the pay gap between the lowest paid men and women, but that is not enough. We need to close the gender pay gap altogether and our new equality Bill, which we will bring forward later this year, will help us step up progress towards that.
	We now have nurseries and after-school clubs in all areas. In my constituency in the London borough of Southwark, there are double the number of child care places that there were six years ago, but it is still a problem for many women to find good child care that they can trust and afford, so we will continue to improve its accessibility, affordability and quality.

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Harriet Harman: We will increase the number of Sure Start centres and learn from the London child care affordability programme, which will tell us the best way to help low-income families with child care.
	We have given parents with children under six new rights to request flexible working. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who was then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3.5 million parents, mostly mothers, have been able to adjust their work patterns to suit their family. Children do not stop needing their parents when they get to their sixth birthday; the responsibilities of parents change as children grow, but they do not lessen. The Prime Minister has said that we will extend the law so that parents of older children can also request flexible working.

Theresa May: Will the right hon. and learned Lady give way?

Harriet Harman: Yes, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

Theresa May: I am very interested in the what the right hon. and learned Lady has just said. In fact, that is the policy announced by the Conservative party some considerable time ago, yet it was only about 10 days ago that the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform announced that he was against the extension of flexible working to parents of older children and that the Government were not going to adopt that policy. Is there a division in the Cabinet on that issue?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend made no such announcement— [Interruption.] He did not. The position is as announced by the Prime Minister when he introduced the draft legislative programme and brought the Queen's Speech before the House. He said that we were going to set up a review under Imelda Walsh—not into whether we should increase the age of children whose parents can have flexible working, but into how we will go about doing it. The review is shortly due to report and when it does, we will extend up the age range of children the right for their parents to have flexible working. I hope that I have reassured the right hon. Lady that on this process of extending flexible working, which we have already led on—and I am grateful for the right hon. Lady's support—we are going to make even further progress.
	The stay-at-home mother has become the working mother, which means that child care, flexible work and after-school clubs are all mainstream public policy issues. We put a family focus at the heart of government because although it matters most of all to parents, it matters to everyone—to the whole of our society and to our economy, too—that the next generation is properly brought up and able to use their skills and talents to the full.
	Family policy is not just about parents and children, but about the older generation. Without the involvement of active grandparents, many families would not be able to cope. Families are multi-generational, which means not just granny helping with grandchildren, but younger families helping the older generation. That is why we have introduced a right for people caring for older relatives to request flexible working, but still too few people know of that right, so we are going to have a campaign to ensure that they do.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Harriet Harman: The Prime Minister has set up a review to look at the support services and financial support for families caring for older or disabled relatives. It will report later this year, and will help 6 million carers. When we have pressed on with providing nurseries and rights for parents, we have not been afraid to be called the nanny state. Now we shall be proud to be called the granny state.

Simon Hughes: I see that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is sitting on the Front Bench. Can the Minister assure us that the Department for Communities and Local Government has a policy on local authority and other social housing that allows people who move, perhaps to their first home, to stay near members of their family with caring responsibilities? For far too long people have been allocated homes away from parents or grandparents, or others whom they need and want to look after. If we really want to liberate women, young and older, so that they are able not only to work but to bring in family members to fulfil caring responsibilities, housing policy will be a crucial element in the equation.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Policy on the allocation of council and social housing is very important in enabling families to stay together and support each other; so is the design of individual homes allowing people to remain independent and in their own homes as they age. Just as we have ensured that new housing developments include access to facilities for children such as schools, playgrounds and open spaces, we seek to ensure that sustainable communities include the granny flat, the day centre, the sheltered housing and the community centre. We recognise the importance of families supporting older people in local communities, and being able to live near their relatives.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Harriet Harman: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Ann Clwyd: I want to set the record straight, as my right hon. and learned Friend has attempted to do herself. She is right: Margaret Thatcher did nothing for women. I was in the House when Margaret Thatcher was here, and we watched her for a long time. There were huge gaps in the Sexual Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, and it was a Labour Government who put that right, not Margaret Thatcher.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: All the developments that I have been listing, including the national minimum wage and increased provision for child care, were matters that Margaret Thatcher and the Tory Government considered not even worthy of being raised in the House of Commons, let alone desirable. Indeed, in 1982, when I asked my first question to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher—it was about the need for after-school clubs—her only response was to laugh, and to say it was irrelevant and nothing to do with Government. This Government believe that those are mainstream issues.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Let me now deal with the question of tackling violence against women, particularly rape and domestic violence. I pay tribute to the important work of many of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). There has been a 26 per cent. increase in the number of men convicted of rape since 1997. We are opening more expert sexual assault referral centres. We have new laws such as the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004, along with the new specialist domestic violence courts and tougher sentencing.
	We know that early intervention can save lives, and that if the issue is swept under the carpet it only gets worse. We need to ensure that every police station treats rape with the seriousness it deserves and that in every court domestic violence is treated with deadly seriousness, because it still claims the lives of two women every week. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will shortly conclude his review of homicide, which will include consideration of the provocation defence in domestic violence cases. There can be no excuses for domestic violence, least of all when the victim has been killed.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Theresa May: Will the Minister give way?

Harriet Harman: I will.

Theresa May: The Minister herself promised last July that she would introduce the domestic violence restraining orders permitted by the 2004 Act, but they have not yet been introduced. Why is that?

Harriet Harman: There will be an announcement shortly about the two provisions in the Act that are still to be implemented, and that will be implemented.
	Just as we seek to banish the old crimes against women—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: —we must seek to tackle new crimes, such as extreme violent pornography on the internet and human trafficking of young women for sex.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Harriet Harman: I will.

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in congratulating this Government, who introduced the 2004 Act? In the Home Affairs Committee yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), announced that we would be introducing homicide reviews, and that the problem of no recourse to public funds for victims of domestic violence was being fixed. That is welcome news to everyone affected by domestic violence.

Harriet Harman: Those are indeed welcome announcements. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make further detailed information available on those announcements shortly.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Just as we are tackling the age-old problems of domestic violence, we are tackling new problems such as human trafficking. It is shameful that women are shipped into the country from abroad, kept as modern-day slaves for sex and advertised for sale in the local newspapers. I welcome the new guidelines issued by the Newspaper Society to try to stop those advertisements.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, Home Office Ministers and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Women and Equality are reviewing the way in which other countries tackle the international sex trade. In this country there are laws to prevent a man from buying a faulty car and to prevent women from working in unsafe workplaces, but apparently it is still okay for men to buy women for sex. Surely, in the 21st century women should not be for sale.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and to the all-party group on trafficking of women and children. We will report later this year on what steps we will take to tackle the demand side of human trafficking.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Our concern to work with and support other women does not stop at our borders. We work to prevent female genital mutilation and forced marriage here and abroad. In developing countries, we work to reduce maternal mortality and AIDS.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: We work to ensure that girls are educated, and that micro-credit is provided to enable women to start their own businesses in developing countries.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: But I do not think that if our Parliament were still 97 per cent. male, any of those things would have happened. Although we now have more women Members of Parliament—

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that this is supposed to be a debate. It is on an important issue, and it is sad that the Leader of the House wants to make it so partisan. Is it not right that if there are to be interventions in a debate, those interventions—although they are in the gift of the Leader of the House at this particular point—should be distributed across the House as a whole?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is entirely up to whichever Member has the Floor to decide which interventions to take.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Although we now have more women Members of Parliament and we have made a difference, we are still a minority.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: That is why we intend, in our new equality Bill, to extend until 2030 the right of political parties to have women-only shortlists for Parliament.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: We will consult on the timing shortly. We are determined to increase the proportion of Labour women Members of Parliament from nearly a third to a half.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Russell Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Harriet Harman: I will.

Russell Brown: When it comes to representation in the House of Commons, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have something to learn from Rwanda, which has suffered so much in recent years but which has female representation of some 48 per cent. in its Parliament?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has made an important point. We are still lagging behind, which is why we intend to include provisions in the equality Bill to enable us to press on with ensuring that we increase the representation of women in the House of Commons.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: There are still areas of British life that remain male-dominated. In our top companies 89 per cent. of the FTSE top 100 directors are men, and in our courts 91 per cent. of High Court judges are men.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Harriet Harman: In our universities 92 per cent. of vice-chancellors are men, and in the Tory party in Parliament 91 per cent. of Members of Parliament are men.

Mark Pritchard: rose—[Interruption.]

Harriet Harman: In the 21st century—

Mark Pritchard: rose—[Interruption.]

Harriet Harman: I am not giving way to one of the 91 per cent.  [Interruption.] I suggest that Conservative Members should give way to more women.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating a very serious issue, and this is a very serious point of order. I feel discriminated against in this female debate. We need some male representation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is unable to recognise a point of order in the hon. Gentleman's comments. All Members are equal in this House.

Harriet Harman: In the 21st century, the fact that 91 per cent. of Tory MPs are men is shameful male domination, and male domination cannot be challenged or changed if it is covered up.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: No, I will not give way; I have thought better of it.
	I invite the Tories and all other parties in this House to say that they will back us when we introduce the equality Bill to extend the right to have all-women shortlists.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Harriet Harman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. She is right to identify the valuable job that women do in this House, but does she agree that it is not only the women Members in this Chamber who do a valuable job, but the women who clean and look after our offices, some of them on extremely poor pay? Will she send out a message to unscrupulous employers who are exploiting women—particularly women cleaners in this place—by giving them low pay?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many of the women who clean the House of Commons are my constituents, and we will look at the new contract for the House of Commons cleaners and make sure that they have a fair deal, which they are entitled to.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Women in this country are no longer prepared to leave all the talking to men, or to leave men to get on with making the decisions. If that had been the case—

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have to join the 350 people in the west midlands who apply for a sex change every year in order to be called in this Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now pushing at the limits of good order himself. The Chair cannot determine how many interventions are taken and from whom they are taken; that is entirely within the gift of the Member who has the Floor.

Harriet Harman: Women—

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give way?

Harriet Harman: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way. She has asked us a direct question about our position on the single equality Bill that she will introduce later in the year. It is, of course, possible for the use of all-women shortlists to be extended purely by taking away the sunset clause and extending the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. Is that what the right hon. and learned Lady intends to do in the Bill?

Harriet Harman: That certainly is what we will do, and I invite the right hon. Lady to ensure that her party backs us not only over putting that into law, but by using it so that instead of only 8 per cent. of Tory MPs being women, her party can move into the 21st century and towards equality.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: This is not about representation for its own sake; it is about representation because of what women in this House do for women outside it. I offer as an example my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has bravely raised, and campaigned on, the issue of forced marriages.

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Harriet Harman: Women in this country expect that women will share the decisions both at work and at home. The days of women accepting being told what to do by men are long gone. As we celebrate 2008 international women's day, we will ensure that we have more women in local government and here in Westminster representing women in this country and fighting for equality here and abroad.
	We are in the era of expectation of equality, but the expectation is not yet matched by reality. Let us—women in Parliament and women in the country—work together to make 2008 a year of further progress towards equality.

Theresa May: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this 97th international women's day. In the past 97 years, the role of women in politics, business and society has progressed beyond recognition. Women did not even have the vote 97 years ago, but now as many women turn out to vote as men, and we have 126 female representatives sitting in this House. Women were almost non-existent in the business sphere 97 years ago, but today there are about 620,000 majority women-owned businesses in the UK generating about £130 billion in turnover, and at long last businesses have realised that employing a woman is not a hindrance, but an asset to the running of the business—although perhaps they would all like to tell Sir Alan Sugar that. Only a handful of universities admitted women 97 years ago, but there are now more women than men at university in the UK, and that trend is set to continue. Those three examples show that in politics, business and education women have not simply waited for men to give them rights; we have gone out and achieved tremendous progress for ourselves. We must, of course, use international women's day to look ahead to the many complex challenges that women face, but we must also use it to look back and celebrate how far we have come.

Mark Pritchard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I shall, indeed.

Mark Pritchard: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I rise with sadness, as all I wanted to say earlier was that I backed the Leader of the House for the deputy leadership of the Labour party—so much for sisterhood, as you never get called. On a serious point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the contribution of women in the judiciary is a very important part of public life? Will she consider endorsing the Filipina candidate for the new International Criminal Court? Is it not a disgrace that there is not one female judge sitting on the ICC, out of 15?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises a very serious point, and he is right to remind us of the significant role women play in the judiciary. Some very distinguished women have played a role in the judiciary.

Andrew Murrison: The Leader of the House spoke for 24 minutes, and during that time she did not once mention the women who serve on the front line in our armed forces; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will cover that point. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that women who are serving are probably as aghast as I am that the Government should have scheduled this debate on international women's day, which as it has been running since the early 1900s can hardly be described as topical, when we have had so little time to debate the defence and security aspects of the Lisbon treaty, which is of great relevance to them, and to both men and women in general?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about women who serve in our armed forces, and we should indeed pay tribute to them and the work that they do in putting themselves on the line for the sake of our country. He also made a point about the Lisbon treaty. I suspect that you would look at me somewhat aghast, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to comment too much on that. I shall simply say that I would have hoped that it was possible for the Government to find time for both a full debate on international women's day and the extra day's debate that was asked for on those specific aspects of that treaty.
	Let me turn now to the challenges that we face. I accept that we must increase the representation of women in our democracy. I find it sad, however, that the Leader of the House and her colleagues line up to attack the Conservative party on our record on women in this House despite the fact that the first woman to take her seat as a Member of Parliament was a Conservative, as was the first woman Prime Minister, and I think I am right in saying that the first woman chairman of a major political party was a Conservative—me, in my appointment as chairman of the Conservative party.

Jim Sheridan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: If I may continue a little further, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
	I am very ready to say that my party accepts the need to do much to improve female representation on the Conservative Benches in this House. That is why the very first issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) spoke about in his acceptance speech as leader of the Conservative party in December 2005 was the need to increase the number of women Conservative Members of Parliament. That is also why I am very pleased that this party has taken the opportunities open to it under the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002—I shall say a little more about them shortly—to take positive steps to improve that situation after the next election.

Jim Sheridan: On the question of women making progress in politics, does the right hon. Lady think that, if we have the first female President of the United States of America, it will be a help or a hindrance?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me down a road that I do not intend to go down. There is a well-accepted tradition that we do not try to interfere in other countries' elections. Let me say simply that we watch that election with close interest.

Maria Miller: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that such a partisan introductory speech by the Minister does little to encourage more women to listen to debates in this place and to consider a parliamentary career as one that they would want to pursue?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point, which I was going to make later but shall come to now. I often say to people who are talking about women in politics and Parliament that they should listen to debates predominantly involving women, notably debates on days such as international women's day, because they will hear a different quality to them. Sadly, the Minister ruined that by her approach to this subject.
	I shall comment on where the Government could do more to improve the quality of life of women in this country. It was shameful that the Minister was unwilling to accept that a single Conservative had done anything to improve the lot of women. Indeed, when she referred to the all-party group on trafficking of women and children, she could not even bring herself to thank its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who has done valiant work to bring that issue to the forefront of the political agenda.

Harriet Harman: I mentioned the group.

Theresa May: But the Minister could have specifically mentioned my hon. Friend and his work as chairman when she was listing people who had done a lot of work in that area.

Eleanor Laing: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the gracious way in which she is making her speech. Does she agree that every time the Minister goes on about the percentage of male Conservative Members and how few women sit on these Benches, as she does frequently, she is being personally insulting to those of us who work hard for the cause of women, the Conservative party and general representation in this country, including my right hon. Friend? In the interests of democracy, the Minister ought to stop this utter insult.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is right, because those on both sides of the House could agree on, and work towards, getting more women into this House. Conservative Members accept that we have work to do. I am proud of the fact that my party adopted the priority list route for selecting candidates. It was first proposed in 2001 by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and I. I am proud to be a co-founder of women2win. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), who was sitting on the Treasury Bench as a Whip, is my co-chairman in that organisation. It has provided support for women, bringing them through and ensuring that more women are selected. I am pleased to say that nearly a third of our selected candidates for the next election are women. The problem for this House is that a significant number of female Labour MPs represent marginal seats, so when we succeed at the next election the overall number of women in this House may not change that much. We will increase the number of women on our Benches, but the number of women on the Labour Benches may decrease.

Lynda Waltho: I am impressed with the right hon. Lady's words, but will she expand on the figures? How many of those selected women will be candidates in winnable Tory seats? How many of them will be normal working-class women who do not have Ashcroft money or are millionaires in their own right?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady must get rid of her stereotyped image of women in the Conservative party. A diverse range of women have been selected as Conservative party candidates. I am pleased to tell her that even if a Conservative Government are elected at the next election with an overall majority of just one, 55 women will be sitting on the Conservative Benches.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Theresa May: There would still be more to be done, but that would be a significant increase on our current number. I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: I well recall the initiative that my right hon. Friend launched in concert with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in 2001. Had she been too self-effacing to mention it, I had been intending to do so on her behalf. Nevertheless, may I put it to her that whether or not it is popular in our party, there is a compelling case for the adoption of all-women shortlists as the best and indeed the only proven method by which dramatically to increase representation, as I argued in an article in  The Independent as long ago as 27 January 2003?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has been a long-standing supporter of the cause of getting more women into Parliament, particularly as Conservative MPs, and of the all-women shortlist. Opinion in the party has been changing on the question of such shortlists. I have always had a concern about them, and I say to members of the Labour party that it may also be a problem for them in using only all-women shortlists as a means of getting women into this House. We need to reach a situation where there is no issue about whether a man or a woman is selected for this House and the attitudes are such that those doing the selecting are examining the individual's skills rather than whether they fit a stereotyped image of a Member of Parliament—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: Quite a queue is building up. I am only two pages into my speech, but I am trying to be as generous as possible with interventions. My concern is that all-women shortlists might not change the attitude in the party to the selection of women. We should all want to achieve a situation where selection is genuinely gender-blind and—

Several hon. Members: rose —

Theresa May: I am spoilt for choice. I noted that when reference was made to women candidates who were millionaires the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) stood up. I wonder whether she still wants to intervene.

Fiona Mactaggart: As the right hon. Lady noticed, I was not standing up at that point. I did not want to intervene on the issue of millionaires—everybody knows that I am one; it is because I inherited money. I wanted to ask whether she could envisage a situation in which a majority of her party's new Members of Parliament were women, as happened among new Labour MPs elected in 2005.

Theresa May: Indeed, I can envisage such a situation. To ensure that it happens, it is important to continue the work within the party and reach a position where people no longer have a stereotyped image of the sort of person who makes a good Member of Parliament.

Jim Sheridan: rose—

Theresa May: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I shall do so again, but then I want to make some progress before taking further interventions.

Jim Sheridan: The right hon. Lady has been generous. On the question of stereotypes and the selection of women, will she join me in congratulating Mr. Speaker on his progressive views in appointing the first female Serjeant at Arms?

Theresa May: Yes. Indeed, I was happy to join others in congratulating the first female Serjeant at Arms when she first took her position in the Chamber after her appointment.
	The Minister asked me a specific question about the equality Bill and I intervened to ascertain exactly what the Government were going to propose in it. I hope that she realises that we supported the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002. I was the shadow Front-Bench spokesman who dealt with it, taking the Bill through from my side of the House. We were happy to support that Act, and I would be happy to support its extension and the removal of the sunset clause so that the opportunities it provides continue. However, it is wrong to portray the Act purely as one about all-women shortlists. What it does is enable parties to take positive action to ensure that they have women candidates. That positive action can take a variety of forms. It can take the form that we have adopted for selections for Westminster or the form we have adopted for selections of European parliamentary candidates. It can also take the form of all-women shortlists. A variety of methods can be used, and we support the removal of the sunset clause and the extension of the Act.
	It is important to get more women into Parliament. We are not trying to do that to be politically correct, as some people complain, but to be politically effective. Women make good MPs. The business community is developing a strong understanding about the different skills and experiences that women can bring to business and the benefits that they can provide. They include skills of listening, using constructive methods and an approach to collegiality and the delivery of objectives that enable businesses to excel. It is those positives that also mean that we should work to increase the number of women MPs.
	I reject the arguments—sadly, one does still hear them—that if we try to get more women Members, we will get second class Members of Parliament. That is absolutely wrong. We may get Members of Parliament who have a different approach to political issues, but we must all recognise that that different approach is equally as valid as the traditional, more male and macho approach that we have seen in this House. I suggest that the big challenge that remains for women in business and in politics is to be able to succeed as themselves and not to feel that they have to behave like, and adopt the attitudes of, the men in those male-dominated environments. That is why we can genuinely make a change by bringing those new skills into the House, but everybody has to recognise that that approach to being a Member of Parliament is as valid as the more traditional macho approach.

Judy Mallaber: I am pleased that the right hon. Lady is saying that those of us selected on all-women shortlists are not second class, because that is what was suggested by the Conservatives when I stood in 1997. Does she agree that there is a demonstrative effect to selecting a woman? It was notable that in the following two elections, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats selected women to stand in my constituency, although unfortunately the Conservatives have selected a male candidate for the next election.

Theresa May: There is a proven demonstrative effect, in that having a woman candidate increases turnout at elections, according to figures from the former Equal Opportunities Commission. At the last election in Maidenhead, the three main political parties were all represented by women.
	Another reason for parties to seek more women candidates is that we should be seeking the most talented candidates, so we should not ignore 50 per cent. of the population and their talents. If decisions are taken by a narrow group of people who think the same way and have the same sort of backgrounds and experiences, they will be less good over time than decisions taken by a wider group of people with greater diversity. Women have different experience sets from those of men, and women know first hand about issues that men do not know about. Indeed, the same goes for many under-represented groups in politics. They all possess valuable experiences that are unique to them and of value to our political life.
	There is perhaps another reason why having women in politics is important. It is that politics has changed. The issues that matter most to people in Britain today are no longer those that are understood as the traditional male issues, although I did receive an intervention on the issue of defence. By and large, when we go out into the streets to talk to people about the issues that matter to them, they talk not about defence and unemployment, but about health and education. It is vital to be able to draw on the experiences that women have in those areas.
	The approach to politics has also changed. In the new politics, we see a feminisation of politics and a less macho approach. We have seen a move away from the yah-boo tone—although that may not have been demonstrated today. A new politics is emerging, characterised by both issues and method, and it means that we are seeing a different, feminised political agenda.

Philip Davies: Some of us believe that candidates should be selected entirely on merit, irrespective of their gender. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those men, in particular, who articulate the cause of all-women shortlists should, if they really believe in them, do the decent thing and give up their seats to allow a woman to take their place?

Theresa May: All the candidates who have been selected by the Conservative party, male and female, have been selected on their merits and because they would make first class Members of Parliament.
	I am pleased to have recently published a document, "Women in the World Today", which sets out the five priority areas that the Conservative party has for women's issues. Unlike the Leader of the House, who was not willing to accept that anybody in another political party could ever have done anything good in this area, I accept that the Government have made some changes and taken some steps that should be welcomed. For example, the approach taken in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 was important. I visited the domestic violence court in Solihull recently and talked to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service about its operation. Such courts have been a valuable step forward and of benefit.

John Hemming: On the issue of domestic violence, does the right hon. Lady share my concern that women are frequently threatened with the removal of their children if they are victims of such violence? Jean Robinson of the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services is concerned that women sometimes do not report domestic violence because they fear that that will happen.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman is right and there are many aspects of the issue that still need to be addressed. Despite the fact that the Government have introduced legislation on this and various other issues that affect women, there are many other issues that need to be addressed. If a woman who is on the receiving end of domestic violence chooses to act, she can still become the victim all over again if she has to leave her home and live in the fear that her children will be taken away.
	The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) intervened earlier on the issue of recourse to public funds for victims of domestic violence. That has been a problem, in relation not only to domestic violence, but to trafficking—

Margaret Moran: As I pointed out, the Government are addressing the issue of no recourse to public funds, and will put money towards supporting women in that situation. Does the right hon. Lady accept that this Government introduced safeguards for victims of domestic violence who could potentially become homeless? We are also looking to further safeguard women in those situations through the Housing and Regeneration Bill.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady perhaps did not hear me say that I am fully willing to accept that the Government have taken steps to improve the lot of women in several ways. However, in several areas, the Government have not followed through on their legislation, and there are still significant challenges facing women. I am concerned that the Government's approach has tended to look at women as a whole, and failed to take into account the diversity of the 30 million British women. The Government have failed to recognise that women are individuals facing distinct challenges. The Government have also tended to take the view that the answer to everything is legislation—

Mark Pritchard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: Perhaps if my hon. Friend had moved seats when trying to intervene on the Leader of the House, she might not have realised it was him. I shall give way to him in a moment.
	In a number of areas, we must look much more sensitively at a range of solutions, rather than simply look for the legislative answer.

Mark Pritchard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very generous. There is a great difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages. I recognise that some ethnic groups in this country allow and want to continue arranged marriage, but does my right hon. Friend agree that forced marriage is completely unacceptable? If the Government are serious about such issues, they will change the legislation to make forced marriage a criminal offence rather than a civil one.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of forced marriages. I hope he will be patient with me, as I will comment on it later.
	The Minister for Women and Equality and I have already debated domestic violence restraining orders. If the Government intend to introduce them, I welcome that. The Minister also mentioned female genital mutilation.

Ann Clwyd: Why did not the Conservatives in the European Parliament support legislation further to outlaw FGM? Why did they abstain and why did only one vote in favour? That was amazing.

Harriet Harman: They have only one woman, and she is leaving.

Theresa May: The right hon. and learned Lady might not have heard me say that we are using the facilities available under the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to ensure that women candidates are selected where they will win seats in the next European parliamentary elections and that we have women in the European Parliament.
	I will be honest with the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I have not looked at the legislation proposed by the EU, although I am happy to do that. We need to consider the question of enforcement. The Government introduced the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, which made FGM an offence, but 74,000 women in the UK are estimated to have undergone the procedure and another 3,000 to 4,000 will do so each year. Despite the prevalence of FGM, not one person has been prosecuted under the Act. We must ensure that we have not merely measures on the statute book but measures on the statute book that change people's lives. That is what it is about.

Ann Clwyd: I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady's point: I introduced the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, and the failure to bring prosecutions for breaching the Act is an absolute disgrace.

Theresa May: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her work on that issue.
	We know that between 5,000 and 8,000 trafficked women are thought to be working in prostitution in the UK. The Government have signed the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, but so far they have failed to ratify it or to change their policies. I hope that the Minister for Women and Equality will seriously consider adopting the policies that we have proposed. The issues are ensuring the prosecution of more traffickers, increasing the number of places in safe houses for victims of trafficking, allowing 16 to 18-year-olds to be admitted to POPPY project places and setting up a helpline for victims of trafficking. I hope that those suggestions are non-contentious, because they could make a difference to the victims of trafficking, reducing their number and supporting those who fall under this terrible slavery of the 21st century.

Philip Hollobone: As a member of the all-party group on the trafficking of women and children and of the Committee that scrutinised the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, may I say that it is right, for once, to welcome the Government's initiative of visiting other countries to see how they tackle the issue? My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the urgency of the issue, because, to this country's shame, London, our capital, has become Europe's capital for sex trafficking. We must introduce legislation as soon as possible to tackle this scourge.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I pay tribute, again, to the all-party group's work on the issue. He is right to emphasise this country's shame. We must ensure that we act preferably to stop, or at least to reduce, this terrible trade in human beings.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: I will give way once more and then I must make genuine progress.

Richard Younger-Ross: The right hon. Lady makes a valid point about trafficked women being forced into prostitution. Women in prostitution are abused in different cities across the country and are often the target of murderers. Does she agree that the decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution would end that scourge?

Theresa May: No, I do not. I look forward with interest to the Government's review on prostitution. There is a debate to be had about the measures that can be taken. Again, enforcement is an issue, because the enforcement of kerb-crawling laws varies across the country. We must ask what we can do, even within the existing framework, to ensure that we try to do something for women who all too often, sadly, are drawn into prostitution through no fault of their own and are on the receiving end of abuse as a result.
	On women in the workplace, the issue of flexible working has already been raised. Some time ago, we said that we would extend the right to request it to the parents of children under 18. In the workplace, the stubborn pay gap is still an issue. I am disappointed that although the Government say that they will do something about the gender pay gap, they intend to leave it to the single equality Bill, which will not be introduced until the Queen's Speech has been delivered later this year. We have made a simple set of proposals to tighten the legislation, which the Government could, if they chose, adopt today. The Government have followed our agenda in a number of other areas and I would be happy if they followed our agenda on pay. Again, we must not only legislate, but ensure that schoolgirls do not simply go into the lower-paid careers that lead to the gender pay gap.

Bill Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I said that I would try to make more progress before taking another intervention. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to intervene later.
	We must look at child care and the lack of choice. The Government's support for child care is restricted and it restricts choice. The Minister for Women and Equality referred to the number of people who rely on support from family and friends. We must see whether we can ensure that that is recognised. One of my concerns about female carers is that all too often they do not know what support is available to them or often find access bureaucratic. We must tackle those issues.
	On vulnerable women and particularly violence against women, I have said in the past to the Minister that the Government need to do more to help the victims of stalking. About 880,000 people in Britain have been the victims of stalking or harassment, but the authorities are all too often ill-equipped to deal with that problem. We must look at police training to support victims of stalking, so that the police can recognise the problems that stalking brings and the damage it does to someone's life.
	Also on violence against women, I am pleased to say that we have made a series of proposals relating to rape. The first is to give rape crisis centres a longer, three-year funding package, which would give them greater certainty about their future. Sadly, too many have closed because of funding problems and uncertainty. We also need to consider the low figure of rape convictions, but approaching that subject is not just about legislation or the criminal justice system. A wider, strategic approach is needed, which is why we would make it compulsory for the sex education curriculum to include the teaching of sexual consent. It is shameful that many young people believe that it is okay for a boy to expect to have sex with a girl if she is being flirtatious, or if he has spent a lot of money on taking her out that evening. It is also shameful that many young people think that it is okay for a boy to hit a girl at some point in their relationship. Those problems cannot be dealt with in legislation; they can be dealt with only with a wider, more strategic approach.
	I wish to mention matters concerning certain ethnic communities. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)—I see that he has moved again, so his patience obviously ran out—made it clear that forced marriages are quite different from arranged marriages. We must make it absolutely clear that forced marriages are wrong. They often involve abuse of the girls who are forced into them, who are sadly often very young. Although 300 cases of forced marriage are reported to the Government's forced marriage unit each year and many more come to the attention of the authorities, even more sadly go unreported. We have recently made a number of suggestions on the matter, including making local authority children's services departments registered third parties that could apply for protection orders. We must ensure that information is available in schools to young girls who may find themselves victims of pressure to marry and ultimately victims of a forced marriage.
	There is a debate to be had on whether a criminal offence should be introduced, because there are differing opinions. Once the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 is in force, we must see how the civil offence operates. It is valid to argue that fewer people will report forced marriage if it is made a criminal offence, because it will mean reporting members of their family. On the other hand, a group of women in Bradford who support the victims of forced marriages made the point at a recent meeting that they wanted a clear message to be sent that forced marriages were wrong. They said that that would happen by making such marriage a criminal offence. We must consider the matter seriously and then do whatever will reduce the number of young girls forced into marriages against their will.
	Another matter on which there are challenges, and on which we can find benefits by working with and through women, is women's role as agents for change in the developing world. Using women as recipients of aid can significantly improve development. The Women's National Commission has argued that
	"government institutions are not always best placed to plan, promote and deliver development programmes. Domestic and international civil society, including women's organisations, often have untapped expertise which could be utilised to ensure local contexts are not lost in strategic aims."
	Women have an important role to play in international development, aid and post-conflict resolution. We should include them in that as much as possible, because of the benefits that they can bring not just to themselves and their families, but to their community and the whole of society.
	I know that a lot of Members wish to speak, many of whom have a fine record of working to improve the rights of women and their representation in the House. There must not be a one-size-fits-all approach to women's policy, and it must not be about preaching to women about how they should lead their lives. The approach taken should be about offering women choice in their lives and giving them opportunities to make choices. It should be about more than simply legislation, because we recognise that there is a social responsibility, and that problems are sometimes about a community attitude and can be solved in ways other than simply reaching for the law.
	We have set out five areas in which women still face strong challenges, and we intend to follow up on them and produce policies that will appeal to women and help to resolve their problems. I hope that the Government are willing to examine our policies and take them on board, not because I have mentioned them today or because they are in a Conservative party document, but because they would make the lives of women in this country better.

Ann Clwyd: First, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality on introducing the debate and on her great efforts over the years. She has been here a few months longer than I have—I came in after a by-election. We all recognise that she has always made women's rights one of her top priorities, which was important at a time when it was difficult to get it on the agenda. In 1983 or 1984, we had to make tremendous efforts to do so. That is why we can speak with feeling about our disappointment in the first woman Prime Minister. Having made it to the top of the ladder herself, she pulled the ladder up behind her very quickly.

Eleanor Laing: Does the right hon. Lady agree that between 1980 and 1990 the proportion of young people going to university in this country increased massively due to the policies of Margaret Thatcher's Government? That made an enormous difference to many thousands of young women, who had an educational opportunity for the first time.

Ann Clwyd: The hon. Lady should not express so much ire. I do not discount everything that that Government did, but there were huge gaps in such legislation as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equal Pay Act 1970, and they needed closing. We continually asked the first woman Prime Minister to do so, but she chose not to.

Katy Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever legislation was made in those years, there was huge social change in Britain that led to many of the women on these Benches arriving here? The pressure from women, and indeed men, outside is incredibly significant. They expect all of us here to do more to ensure that we achieve equality.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I am pleased to see all the women in the House, because I know from personal experience how difficult it has been for women to be elected. I was the only woman from Wales here for 14 years, so like my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, I am pleased to see more women in the House. It was a long fight; there had been only three women MPs from Wales before I was elected in 1984, two of whom were daughters of famous men. One was Lloyd George's daughter, and the other was the daughter of the then Deputy Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The third was Dorothy Rees, who was unfortunately defeated after one year. That is why some of us speak with considerable feeling about the difficulties of getting here.
	I was elected in competition with a lot of other people, but I know that if it had not been for all-women shortlists, I would probably not have been joined by other women from Wales. There was a culture of women not selecting women, and I am afraid there still is.

Eleanor Laing: indicated assent.

Ann Clwyd: I see the hon. Lady nodding. We have all had experience of that problem. Now, however, I think most people see that to increase the representation of women here, it has been necessary to discriminate in favour of women where previously they were discriminated against. A number of people have mentioned merit, but if candidates had been selected on merit there would have been many more women in this House than there have been over the years.
	We now have 96 women in the parliamentary Labour party, six of them in the Cabinet and 41 in ministerial positions. The Conservatives know they are lagging behind, with only 17 women Members of Parliament. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) acknowledged that and talked about ways to bring more women into her party. Looking at the Opposition Benches, I am sorry to see so few women. Only one woman Liberal is here this afternoon; I would have hoped that more of her colleagues would join her for this debate.

Philip Davies: Can we get to the nub of the matter and find out how serious the right hon. Lady is about getting more women into Parliament? At the next general election, in those constituencies where a Labour man is standing against a Conservative woman, will she support the Conservative woman to get more women in Parliament, or will she support the Labour man?

Ann Clwyd: I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that. Obviously I want to see more Labour women in Parliament; but after more Labour women, I want to see more women on the Opposition Benches, both in the Conservative party and in the Liberal party. Plaid Cymru has no women, nor does the Scottish National party. We all want to see an improvement.

Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the Labour party's great achievement, in which she and many other Members here today played a role, of ensuring that when the Assembly was set up in Wales, equal numbers of men and women stood for election, which resulted in its being, in the last Session, the only totally balanced legislative Chamber in the world?

Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was my next point. Forty-seven per cent. of Assembly Members are women. We had to battle hard for that against a lot of opposition, as my hon. Friend knows, because she and I took a lot of flak at the time when we were making the case. A lot of the flak came from Welsh men—and Welsh men in the Labour party, I am sorry to say—but eventually we got our way, and we are pleased that nearly half of the Labour AMs are women.
	I want to mention one or two women who made great efforts to bring more women into Parliament. When I stood for my first election in 1970—a very long time ago now—a woman who spoke for me was one of the first suffragettes. Leonora Cohen lived in retirement in north Wales, although she was originally from Leeds. She was 97 when she stood on a platform in Denbigh town hall; she was ramrod straight, had what must have been an 18 inch waist as well as a mass of white hair, and was dressed in black.
	One of Emmeline Pankhurst's suffragettes, Leonora Cohen played a largely supportive role in selling suffragette newspapers and marmalade to raise funds, but in 1911 she was so incensed by Asquith—the Liberal Prime Minister and arch-anti-suffragette—breaking his commitment to women by announcing a manhood suffrage Bill to give all adult males the right to vote, that almost overnight she was seized by a votes-for-women passion. In 1913, she broke the showcase of the Crown jewels in the tower of London. Wrapped around the bar she used to smash the cabinet was a piece of paper stating:
	"This is my protest against the Government's treachery to the working women of Great Britain."
	She spent time in Armley jail and Holloway for her protests, going on hunger and thirst strike.
	In 1918, after the first world war, women over 30 got the vote in Britain, and in 1928 it was granted to women over 21. Leonora Cohen went on to become president of the Yorkshire Federation of Trades Councils and later a justice of the peace. She died in 1978, aged 105. Had she hung on for another year, she would have seen me elected as a Member of the European Parliament in 1979. I am sorry that she did not. Leonora Cohen and people like her were an inspiration to me and many others. I hope that, at the age of 97, I can stand on a platform to support another woman candidate.

Angus MacNeil: I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) have been making some back-of-an-envelope calculations—literally—since the right hon. Lady mentioned women's representation in the SNP. We figure that roughly a quarter of SNP parliamentarians over time have been women. I just wanted to inform her of that, given her earlier reference to us.

Ann Clwyd: But, of course, not at Westminster.

Stewart Hosie: Yes, including at Westminster.

Angus MacNeil: Over time.

Ann Clwyd: I remember Winnie Ewing, of course, but my point was that at this moment in time, there are no women SNP Members.
	As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality said, our Government introduced the minimum wage, which the Conservatives opposed. When Labour was in opposition I spoke on employment matters, so I know how much opposition there was from big business to the minimum wage. The same arguments were made then as are being made now in relation to legislation on agency workers—that the measure would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, in my Cynon Valley constituency, workers are now guaranteed a fair wage and thousands of women have been lifted out of poverty. The minimum wage was an important step forward, and I welcome the recently announced increase to £5.73 an hour. I am also proud to support the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, which I hope will ensure fair conditions for thousands of men and women on temporary contracts or working through agencies. It is a scandal that temporary and agency workers work in such poor conditions on such low wages.
	For many years, I have been concerned about women prisoners in the UK. There are still no prisons for women in Wales, so women are imprisoned hundreds of miles from their children, their families and their loved ones. This week, a report from the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health shows that short spells in prison, even on remand, damage women's mental health and family life, yet do little or nothing to stop them reoffending. The damage is made much worse when women are imprisoned a long distance from home and they receive inadequate health care during and after their time in prison. There are more than 4,400 women in 17 prisons in England. Four women prisoners in every five have mental health problems, most commonly depression and anxiety, and almost half have been the subject of abuse. I welcome the recent report by Jean Corston, a former Member of this House, and very much hope that the Government will take up its recommendations, including the replacement of women's prisons with smaller local custodial units. We should imprison women only when there is no other option. It is of the utmost importance that female prisoners be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Julie Morgan: In Wales, we have no prison for women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be ideal if south Wales had one of the small units recommended by Corston?

Ann Clwyd: As a north Wales person and a south Wales MP, I think that we should have the units in north and south Wales, but apart from that I agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Julie Kirkbride: I am very interested in what the right hon. Lady is saying, and I agree with large parts of it. I point out for the record that a women's prison in my constituency was closed and changed into a men's prison, as there was so much pressure to incarcerate men. There is only one issue on which I might disagree with the right hon. Lady. Is the implication of what she says that when we make decisions about giving people custodial sentences, we should treat men differently from women? I shall have to part company with her if she does not think that there should be equality on such a big human rights issue.

Ann Clwyd: My point is that women are usually imprisoned for quite low-level crimes. The people who sentence them should think carefully before putting them in already overcrowded prisons. Overcrowded prisons are a problem for both men and women. I should like far fewer people to be put in prison, and alternatives found for dealing with whatever crime they have committed.

Katy Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that women are often given far harsher sentences than men for the same crime because of society's attitude and how it thinks women should behave?

Ann Clwyd: I entirely agree.
	I want to come on to the issue of carers, which the Minister mentioned. The issue is often raised in the House, with good reason. I know that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead has a particular view on carers, which I think we all share. There are 6 million carers in the UK, and they are estimated to save the economy £87 billion a year through their unpaid work. The burden of caring falls disproportionately on the shoulders of women, with 58 per cent. of carers being female. The Government have done a lot to support carers and look after their needs, but a lot more needs to be done to protect that growing section of society as the population age.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the right hon. Lady accept that there is a particular problem with young carers, who not only give up their time but often sacrifice their education and career to look after someone?

Ann Clwyd: That was my very next point. I am particularly concerned about the eligibility criteria for carer's allowance and the inability of those in full-time education to claim the allowance. The links between disability and poverty are crystal clear, and we must do all that we can to break them. It is hard enough for people who provide care for more than 35 hours a week to continue their education, without having to worry about financial arrangements. If women are being put off education because they cannot afford to go to school or university while caring for friends and family, there is little hope of their ever escaping the cycle of poverty. It is only fair that they, too, be eligible for carer's allowance.
	I want to talk about the American elections. Recently, I gave the annual lecture at Wellesley college in Boston, which is of course the college of Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Madame Chiang Kai-shek, and many other women who have made a real contribution to society. There is an interesting piece in  The Times today by Anatole Kaletsky, which gives two reasons why
	"They must go for Hillary".
	He points out:
	"The possibility of a black president has electrified the world—and rightly so. President Obama would become an inspiring role model, not only for black Americans, but for oppressed races around the world, not least in Africa.
	But surely this is even truer of a woman becoming the world's most powerful human being. In any rational comparison of frustrated talent, women, who are half the world's population, have suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group."
	On Monday, I listened to a piece on "Woman's Hour" while I was driving to Westminster. There was a discussion of why Hillary was not doing as well as she might have done—this was before the most recent results—and it was suggested that it was because she was too like a man. It was said that she was too manly in her presentation, whereas Obama had shown a feminine streak, which was more appealing than Hillary's macho streak. Of course, women are always in a no-win situation. I found it particularly ironic that that point should be made.
	I also want to talk about ageism. There is the matter of maturity and experience. I welcome the many young people in the House, but there is also a place for people who have been here longer than they have; I say that with some feeling. I do not like the ageism that I sometimes see in the House. I did not like what happened to the previous leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). People should be judged not on their age but on their ability to do a job. I am not making the case for McCain, although on some issues, particularly Iraq, I agree with him, and not with the Democrat candidates. Hillary is 61, and people say that she may be too old. The point is made in  The Times today that
	"there is the matter of maturity and experience. This is Mr McCain's biggest gift to the Clinton campaign...Given the high propensity to vote among the elderly"—
	we know that there is such a propensity in this country, too—
	"this election will not be decided by a baby boom but by a senility surge."
	An older candidate can attract older people to vote.
	As I said earlier, women are never thought to be just right; it is always thought that there is something wrong with them. That is true of their appearance, too. They are judged to be too fat, too thin or too old, but they are never just right. I got involved in the issue of cosmetic surgery some years ago; the trend is of long-running concern to me. A constituent came to me who had had silicone implants, which were all the rage at one time. The silicone implants exploded inside her. They had both ruptured, and she had to have a double mastectomy. As a result of that case and the fact that such implants were fashionable at the time, we set up a group called Survivors of Silicone. I was contacted by many women who had had experiences similar to my constituent's. When the Labour Government came in 10 years ago, we managed to introduce a regulation to ensure that whenever there was a silicone intervention, people had to register it, so that there was some tracking of those who had had such implants.
	I am worried about the growth of cosmetic surgery. Last year alone, 32,453 surgical cosmetic procedures were carried out, compared with just 28,000 the previous year; that represents a 12 per cent. rise in cosmetic operations. Some 91 per cent. of the patients were women, and the rest were men; the trend is growing among men as well. Research from various groups has pointed out some of the dangers. More and more women and men are opting for non-surgical treatments. By the way, if something goes wrong during private cosmetic surgery—and many people still contact me about things that have—the national health service very often has to pick up the problem; unfortunately, the patients cannot get it put right in the private sector.
	Some time ago, surgeons from Moorfields eye hospital told me that they were worried about the growth of eye operations on the high street. It is suggested that people can walk in and walk out for such procedures, and that because of that they must be okay and safe. However, most of us know that that is just not right. Things very often go wrong, particularly with laser eye surgery, which has not yet reached perfection. Things go wrong with it and, again, the NHS has to pick up the problem.
	I am working with  Which? at the moment. We are pushing for the recommendations in the chief medical officer's expert group report on the regulation of cosmetic surgery to be adopted by the Government. They are that there should be an end to self-regulation and that there should be greater enforcement of existing legislation. Self-regulation, I am afraid, does not work and the regulation of the huge growth in cosmetic surgery cannot be done by the industry alone. I hope that our campaign will succeed so that men and women who opt for cosmetic treatments are not fooled into their decision by advertising gimmicks and pushy salespeople, only to regret their decisions after receiving substandard treatments.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Clwyd: I am just about to finish, but yes I will.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the right hon. Lady accept that part of the problem is the celebrity culture, which is promoted through fashion and weekend magazines? The stars are seen to be having all these operations and they appear to have size-zero bodies, to which people aspire. Those magazines have a social responsibility not to feature an article on bulimia once every blue moon, but to change the size and the sort of women that they feature.

Ann Clwyd: I agree, as I tighten my jacket. The pressures on women to conform to certain shapes, sizes and looks are extraordinary. The Advertising Standards Authority has a real role to play, but I believe that it is not carrying out the role for which it was set up in respect of regulating adverts of the type that appear in magazines and newspapers. There are pages and pages of such adverts. The things that appear in such media put pressure on young women in particular to get a nose job or some other kind of job done, and that should be regulated by the ASA. As the hon. Gentleman said, there should also be lengthier magazine articles and television items that give a fairer idea of what is going on.
	All the women whom I see in this Chamber are just right—they are not too fat, too thin or too whatever; they are just women. I am pleased to have spoken on international women's day.

Jo Swinson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I particularly enjoyed her remarks about the American elections, which I have also been following with much interest. My overriding concern is that either Obama or Clinton should be in the White House next time; I shall be pleased to see the back of its current occupant. However, I confess that, faced with the choice between the two Democrat candidates, I would be a Hillary supporter. I share the right hon. Lady's abhorrence of ageism, but as the youngest Member of the House, I should point out that the issue works both ways.
	I must apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who would normally speak for my party on women's issues; she has a prior constituency commitment. I am delighted to speak in her place in this debate to mark international women's day. Yesterday, there was a wonderful cross-party event just outside Parliament to pay tribute to Emmeline Pankhurst of the suffragette movement. It was a bit of a shame that the nearest she has got to having a statue in Parliament is having one outside it in Victoria Tower gardens. None the less, the event was very enjoyable and it was good to see so many men there as well—one of whom, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), is in the Chamber now.
	This debate is particularly appropriate, not only because it is international women's day but because 2008 is a year of many anniversaries. It is 90 years since women achieved the right to vote and 80 years since they achieved the right to do so on the same basis as men. On the subject of history, I should like to share what I tell constituents is my favourite part of the tour of the House of Commons. It is the marble statue in the approach to Central Lobby. I do not know the background to its subject, but he was clearly deemed to have been worthy of a statue in the House of Commons when Emmeline Pankhurst was not. He was, apparently, the second Viscount Falkland, who obviously had some importance. What attracts me to that part of the tour is not the subject of the statue, but the little crack along the sword that he holds; both his hands are clasped on the sword, which goes down to the statue's marble base.
	That crack is there because on 27 April 1909, one Marjory Hume, also a suffragette, handcuffed herself to the statue and the only way to remove her was to break the sword. It is my favourite part of the tour because when I stand by the statue, I think about how nearly 100 years ago, a piece of history took place by it.

Judy Mallaber: I understand that the statue had to be broken because there was no blowtorch. After the incident, there was a worry about further demonstrations, so the order went out to buy a blowtorch so that the chains, rather than the valuable statues, could be broken.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Lady for that further information about the event.
	I would argue that the representation of women is important in itself—for equality and fairness in a 21st-century society. It is also important for the credibility of this Chamber in the eyes of our constituents. When they turn on the television to watch the goings-on here, as they may occasionally do, it does politics no service when they see such a lack of diversity in the House; that applies not only to gender, but to age, background, ethnicity and many other elements of diversity.
	It is also important to note that better representation of women changes the issues that are discussed. I highly recommend an excellent book called "Women in Parliament" by Boni Sones and the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), which chronicles interviews with many women MPs. I read it a few months after my election and found it contained a few tips. I also found, pleasingly, that some of the experiences of women elected in 1997 of extreme and awful cases of sexism, even in the Chamber, did not relate to my experience eight years later in 2005. I am pleased that there has been good progress in the House. The book also found that there has been a noticeable change in the issues discussed as a result of having more women in the Chamber.
	We have heard many issues raised today—trafficking, women in prisons, armed forces, child poverty, carers, forced marriage, black and minority ethnic women—all of which are important. But time is limited for the debate and it is impossible for me to cover everything. If more speakers can contribute, it will make for more interesting debate. I intend to confine my remarks to a few areas that particularly affect women; equal pay, violence against women, pensions, the international dimension and women's representation.

Margaret Moran: I thank the hon. Lady for that unanticipated plug and for her support for the follow-on project that Boni Sones and I have been involved in—women's parliamentary radio—through which we can provide unmediated information about women in Parliament and about what we are doing, rather than the stereotypes about women in this place that are often promulgated in the media.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right; the project is an excellent one that deserves support and its website is www.wpradio.co.uk. I would certainly encourage hon. Members to become involved with that excellent project.
	The Minister mentioned the pay gap and accepted that it was still a problem. It is simply shocking that, more than 30 years after the equal pay and the sex discrimination legislation, we still have a significant pay gap between men and women—17 per cent. of the mean average for full-time workers and as high as 35 per cent. among part-time workers. That latter figure is particularly worrying because so many more women as a percentage work part-time than men.
	The current mechanism to deal with equal pay claims is not working. In the year to 1 April 2007, some 130,000 claims were made under the legislation. Before it was wound up, the Equal Opportunities Commission pointed out the great problems that it had and the time taken for cases to be heard, an understandable delay given their volume. Effectively, the legislation is not managing to tackle the issue.
	Pay audits are a good, proactive way of dealing with the pay gap and are now common practice in the public sector. I would like that arrangement to be extended to the private sector. We have the gender equality duty but we should require private companies to undertake pay audits and, as a quid pro quo, say to them that if problems are uncovered during the audit, claims cannot be made against them as long as they put right those problems.

Sandra Gidley: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is in the best interests of companies to provide the information? All the evidence from those companies that provide such information is that they get better women applying for jobs as a result. It is a win-win situation for women and for the companies.

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) pointed out that businesses are increasingly recognising the different skills sets that women bring to an organisation and the complementarity of having mixed teams of men and women.

Katy Clark: I agree with the hon. Lady on mandatory pay audits. She mentioned the number of equal pay claims that are currently being brought, many of them by the public sector. Does she agree that one of the problems was that equal pay legislation was effectively ignored and that it is only within the past 10 years that the issue has been addressed?

Jo Swinson: I read a shocking report about the team that is set up to deal with claims from the NHS. Even within the public services, the issue is not being addressed and the thought that Government services are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is very concerning.
	On equal pay, we have to look at the issue of child care and I would propose that we allow maternity leave to be shared between fathers and mothers as they see fit. Currently, it could be said that fathers get quite a raw deal, in getting only a short period of paternal leave, and that helps to reinforce discrimination against women. An employer interviewing a woman of child-bearing age might perhaps wonder whether this person, whom they might employ, will end up taking maternity leave, but would not necessarily think the same about a man. By sharing the parental leave, more choice would be given to parents about managing child care, and it would help to tackle some of the indirect discrimination that is difficult to prove and to deal with through legislation.

Julie Kirkbride: There is broad agreement in the House about equalising pay, but I want to mention one of the things that shocked the Select Committee when we looked at the findings of the Women and Work Commission. The commission studied women graduates and compared them with male graduates five years out of university. One would have thought that there was a reasonable expectation that the pay gap would not even exist, let alone be very big, but it was still 15 per cent. I worry how intractable the problem of the pay gap is.

Jo Swinson: Indeed. The issue is very concerning. In my experience of working in the private sector, one got a pay rise only if one asked for and negotiated it.

Julie Kirkbride: And the boys do.

Jo Swinson: As the hon. Lady says, "The boys do." From an early age, boys, through social conditioning, are encouraged to speak out and to shout out in class; boys are less likely to be disciplined for that. It is "Be a good girl," but "Boys will be boys." There is an in-built discrimination of which, to a certain extent, we are all guilty. Partly this could be addressed through education, which is why pay audits and the requirement on companies to be proactive in that respect is so important.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to extend flexible working to parents of older children, but I would go further and say that we need to change the mindset and culture of work in this country. Businesses need to be able to make decisions based on business reasons, but why should not everybody have the right to request, not demand, flexible working? If everybody had that right, we might start to change the working culture. That can be in the interests of business; if one member of staff wants to start and leave early and another wants to start and leave later, a customer-facing business might be able to open for longer.
	On violence against women—a scourge on our country and the world—I pay tribute to the great work of the End Violence Against Women coalition, which has done great things to highlight the issue. The shocking statistic that almost half of all women in the UK will, at some point in their lives, face domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking is frankly unacceptable. In the past few years, much progress has been made to counter such violence, and the Labour Government have introduced specialist domestic violence courts, sexual assault referral centres and so on to deal with certain aspects of it. But there is still a huge amount that needs to be done. Recently the End Violence Against Women coalition found that one third of local authorities have no specialist violence against women services. Rape crisis centres are closing in increasing numbers; surely we need to be going in the other direction.
	The recent report "Map of Gaps" highlighted Scotland as a good example to be followed, as Scotland had ring-fenced the funding for support for women's services. As a Scottish MP, I was particularly pleased to read about that. That is why it is with great disappointment that I have to inform the House that the recently elected Scottish National party Government in Holyrood have reversed that pioneering and forward-thinking move and, in the recent local funding round, have ceased ring-fencing the money for women's aid services and for work to counter violence against women. The money will now be rolled up into the general local government settlement. When budgets come under pressure, I have a fear that some of those services for women will be cut.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Lady, I am sure, will confirm, for the sake of completeness, that the local government settlement is much bigger and there is every intention that every one of those services will continue to be provided.

Jo Swinson: There is no guarantee. When the funding was ring-fenced, it had to be spent on those services. It will now be subject to decision making and there is great pressure on local authority funding in Scotland. Councils must make difficult decisions because they have effectively been blackmailed into providing a zero per cent. council tax rise. I have great concerns that some important services will be cut.

Katy Clark: In my constituency there is a 3 per cent. cut in local government funding, and Women's Aid is one of the organisations whose funding is being cut. That is the experience in many parts of Scotland. The hon. Lady makes a valid point.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the additional information that the hon. Lady provides about her area. I know that she will be concerned about the cuts to those services.
	What is missing, and what the End Violence against Women coalition is calling for, is a cross-departmental approach to the issue. We need to recognise that violence against women is not just about the often excellent Department responsible for women and equality matters. It is not just about the health service providing support when women have been victims of violence, or the justice system dealing with such cases. It is not just about safe transport for women or education to prevent such violence. All the relevant Departments need to work together.
	On 25 January 2006 at column 1435 of  Hansard I questioned the then Prime Minister about that. I asked him if he would commit to developing an integrated strategy. I was somewhat disappointed by his answer, which related solely to victims of domestic violence. The point that I was making was that violence against women is much wider than just domestic violence. The Government were given one out of 10 in the first year by the coalition in its report on those services, and two out of 10 the following year. I hope that there will be continued progress.
	I hope that in her summing up the Minister will be able to report further on the issue. I raised it again on 17 July 2007 following a statement from the Minister for Women, who said:
	"We are considering merging the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence and the inter-ministerial group on sexual offences in order to take an overall view across Government on violence against women."—[ Official Report, 17 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 183.]
	That would be welcome. I should like to know, some months on, whether that has happened or the status of the proposal.
	With reference to violence against women, I tabled early-day motion 765 on the campaign for justice for victims of rape, which 84 hon. Members have already signed. The conviction rate for rape, as we all know, is appallingly low—around 5 per cent., which is down from 33 per cent. in the 1970s. That is not the conviction rate for cases that get to court. More than four out of five cases do not get to court, so the problem is not necessarily at the jury stage. The difficulty tends to arise at an earlier stage, with cases being dropped because insufficient evidence has been collected.
	I know that the Government have been consulting on the issue, which is to be welcomed. We need to know how we can improve criminal practices to ensure that more cases get to court and are successful, but it is also important that the support services receive stable funding. That can be an important factor in determining whether a woman will pursue a case, decide to drop it or not report it at all.
	We need to address the myths about rape. There have been some shocking reports about the perception out there. In 2005, an ICM poll found that a third of British people thought that in some circumstances a woman could be held partly responsible if she was raped. That must be scotched. It is not a woman's fault if she is raped. It is not her fault if she has been drinking. It is not her fault depending on what she is wearing. If somebody was murdered or mugged, we would not say that it was their fault because of the way they had acted, and we should not say that in the case of rape.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead mentioned a horrifying statistic about the number of young girls being pressurised into sex. A recent Amnesty study showed that 40 per cent. of young people know girls whose boyfriends have coerced or pressurised them into sex. In one sense, that is shocking, but it is not all that surprising when one considers the education that is currently provided and the different views about sex that are allowed to develop between boys and girls. We must tackle the matter from an education point of view so that it is clear what is and is not acceptable behaviour.
	I questioned the Minister for Schools and Learners about that in December. The point that I was making was that it was not just sex education that was important—relationships education must be an integral part of that. When young people are learning about how to have safe sex, about the biology of sex, about what happens, they also need to understand the context of the relationships in which that can happen and the issues of consent, love and confidence that go with that. I do not see how the two aspects can be separated, so I was extremely disappointed when I asked the Minister if he would consider making such education a statutory requirement, and he replied:
	"Sex education is statutory, but the relationship side is not."—[ Official Report, 17 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 584.]
	He went on to say that he wanted better sex and relationships education, but would not make a commitment to make that a statutory requirement. If the Government are serious, they need to look carefully at that issue.
	On women's pensions, the Government, to give them their due, have made some progress, particularly for women with caring responsibilities who do not have a complete national insurance record. However, the way that changes are being introduced means that there will be a cliff edge where the difference in entitlement between women who are eligible after 6 April 2010 and women who are not eligible the day before will be £27,000 over their lifetime.
	The Government should have considered introducing the new scheme in a more staggered way to avoid such a cliff edge. They should also consider a citizen's pension. It will still be a requirement to have 30 years of national insurance contributions for a full pension. Even with that change from 39 years, some women will still not achieve a full pension because of their caring responsibilities. That needs to be taken into account.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) has drawn attention to the problem of women who have gaps in their contribution record, which they could pay to have filled. There was a six-year period when the Government did not inform women that that was possible. Women can do that retrospectively and in some cases be eligible for a lump sum of a couple of thousand pounds or more, plus an enhanced pension going forward. I have tried to raise awareness of the matter in my constituency and help women in individual cases, but the Government should take responsibility for being proactive and making sure that women get what is rightfully theirs.
	On the international agenda—after all, we are celebrating international women's day—it is important to consider the issues that women face around the world. There are countries where female infanticide is common. As has been mentioned, 2 million girls every year go through the appalling practice of female genital mutilation. Rape is used as a weapon of terror. We saw that in Rwanda, yet the same is happening again in Darfur. Women are oppressed in societies and countries across the world, unable to access education and denied equal rights in judicial procedures. Poverty tends to hit women the hardest. This week there is an excellent exhibition in the House, in the Upper Waiting Area, about the impact of climate change on women. In the developing world women will be hardest hit by the effects of climate change.
	Interestingly, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said, women can often be part of the solution, even though they suffer the worst elements of the problem. There is a high correlation between the education of women in a country and that country's level of development. We see micro-finance initiatives run by women throughout the world to make their communities better, and this Government, through their international development work, should rightly ensure that the involvement of women in the solution to many of those problems is a priority.
	That brings me to women's representation, which brings all of those issues together. There are 126 women Members of Parliament at the moment—fewer than one in five—which is clearly not enough. The figures are slightly better in some of the other authorities and Parliaments. A third of the Members in the Scottish Parliament are women, but I am sad to say that that is a decrease from 40 per cent. previously. The Welsh Assembly has an excellent record, with 47 per cent. of its Members being women—I congratulate the Assembly on achieving that. In the European Parliament, 31 per cent. of Members are women. Although representation in local authorities is better than it is in this House, with 29 per cent. of councillors being women—and I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have the highest percentage of women councillors, at 32 per cent.— we have no reason to be complacent.
	Sometimes in meetings, I have raised that problem, and men will turn round and go, "Oh, a third are women. That's quite good.", and I say, "Hang on a second—it might be quite good compared to the really awful representation in other areas, but there is no way that a third of representatives being women is good." We can probably say that a figure of 47 per cent. is quite good—it is not always going to be exactly 50:50—but we cannot be complacent about a proportion such as a third. The Labour Benches are made up of many more women, and I hope that there is no complacency there, because even on their Benches, there is still a long way to go.
	We need to look at the variety of reasons why representation is so low. Is sexism the reason? It probably is partly sexism, but I do not think that it is the only one. The reason is less likely to be sexism now than it was 30 years ago. We certainly know that the electorate are no less likely to vote for a woman. In fact, I have seen research showing that not only does turnout go up when women stand, but that women are marginally more likely to be elected than men—so it is an advantage to have women candidates. If the electorate are no longer sexist, it would be slightly strange to suggest that political parties have a higher degree of sexism. Although sexism is probably still a factor in some cases, it is not the only one.
	Is it a matter of lifestyle? Is it that women look at us debating until 11 o'clock—on at least two nights so far this week—and at the sometimes strange procedures and practices of this House, and say, perhaps entirely sensibly, "Hang on a second, that's not for me. I can make an impact in another career in business or in one of the professions, or through working in my local community." I suspect that that sentiment has a role to play. However, it would not explain the low percentage of councillors. Combining the lifestyle of a councillor with the other sensible things that one might want to do is easier than combining them with the lifestyle of a Member of Parliament, which involves two lives and two homes.
	Cash is certainly part of the problem. The pay gap exacerbates the representation problem. Let us be honest about it—standing for Parliament and being involved in politics leads to additional costs. Like it or not, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, women get judged on their appearances more, so there are wardrobe costs. There are certainly child care costs. But there is also the cost of going to party conferences and accommodation, and the little things that happen all the time when one is a candidate, such as taking volunteers out for a drink after a hard day's work. A lot of incidental costs are involved, and because there is a pay gap, the financial implications are even worse for women.
	Another real problem is confidence. One of my favourite things about the job is speaking to school groups. Rather than being deferential, they will always tell it exactly like it is, and they are inquisitive and enthusiastic. I have noticed with interest that when I meet a school group and ask for questions, nine times out of 10 the first question is from one of the boys, and very often the second question is, too. There have even been occasions when I have had to turn to the class and say, "Come on girls, you must be thinking interesting things, too. Why don't you put your hands up?" Then, fair enough, some of them do. I have noticed that; I do not know whether other women, or male Members, in the Chamber have done so.
	I remember the feeling of sitting in a political meeting or a classroom and thinking of something, then thinking, "Shall I say that? No, I might look stupid." I have a sort of internal conversation, and decide that it is safer not to put my hand up, or not to contribute. Then, of course, some bloke says the same thing far less eloquently, and everyone lauds them for it. It is only through making myself speak, and through others helping me to have the confidence to do it, that I got to a position where I felt happy to stand for Parliament. I did not wake up one morning and think, "I want to be an MP"—other people suggested the idea to me.
	I did a straw poll of my female colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and about half of them were asked to stand by someone else. I have not done a scientific poll with the male Members of Parliament, but I suggest that there might be a different result. I would urge all hon. Members who want to see more women in politics to ensure that they say to someone, "Why don't you put your name forward and do it?" rather than just expect women magically to think that they will do it. Even if they do not want to, they will be flattered to be asked.

Lynda Waltho: I am inspired by the hon. Lady's comments and I am sure that many young women will be inspired by the way in which she is making her point. Most of my colleagues will have attended meetings where they felt exactly the same. A Labour politician advised me that I should "feel the fear" and do it anyway. If the hon. Lady tells that to the women to whom she speaks, it will go a long way.

Jo Swinson: That is good advice and a tactic that I urge others to employ.
	I acknowledge the progress that the Labour party has made on electing many more women to Parliament—it would be churlish not to do so. I disagree that all-women shortlists are the solution for every party, but I would support an extension of the sunset clause in the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 till 2030 or until the issue is no longer a problem. Parties should have the opportunity to use that as a tool to tackle the problem, but it is not the only tool. If the problem is sexism in the selection process, I can think of few other things that would change the outcome. However, if that is not the main problem, all-women shortlists are not necessarily the right solution.
	I speak from several years' experience of dealing with the matter in my party. We examined the figures, did the research and found that women were as likely to get selected in seats—winnable and otherwise—as men, but five times as many men came forward as candidates. When working with such numbers, ending up with a gender balance would be a statistical anomaly.
	We have been working on the matter since the conference debated how to tackle the problem in 2001, and I chair the Liberal Democrats' campaign for gender balance, which is the approach that we have taken. We have encouraged more women to come forward. About three times as many men as women want to become candidates, but we have made some progress.

Julie Morgan: I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady's analysis. However, I disagree with her last point because our experience in the Labour party is that, when we had shortlists that were half men and half women, the men still won.

Jo Swinson: That may well have been the case in the Labour party. I have not conducted research on the Labour party, only on my party. We found that, when shortlists were half men and half women, men won half the time and women won half the time. I will not say that there was never an instance of sexism, or that a sexist comment was never made, in Liberal Democrat selection contests, although in my experience, for everyone who said, "What would you do if you had children?" or, "Are you sure you can do this?" someone else said, "It's great to have more women in Parliament and I'll vote for you because of that." Things can even out, but I cannot speak for other parties—obviously, I do not know their internal procedures and cultures as well as those of mine.
	Each party should be entitled to find its own method of dealing with the problem. Our approach is to encourage more women to become candidates, and we have good support mechanisms to help them with that and to get selected. Given that we still have many more male than female candidates, we must ensure that those women punch above their weight and are more likely to get selected. We undertake intensive mentoring and training. Two weekends ago, we held our now annual event, "Calling all Future Women MPs!" Fifteen women attended and it was inspiring—I hope to see many of them on our Benches in future.
	Many firsts have happened in the past few decades. An important first was the election of the first UK female Prime Minister in 1979. I was surprised and disappointed that Labour Members could not recognise that achievement. I share many of their concerns about what Baroness Thatcher did in office—I am also speaking as a Scot, and I do not believe that she was necessarily good for the country—but I can still acknowledge that important achievement, which deserves to be recognised, as do many achievements more recently by Labour women. They include the first woman Speaker, Baroness Boothroyd, the first woman Foreign Secretary, who is still a Member of Parliament, and the first female Home Secretary. As was mentioned earlier, we now have the first female Serjeant at Arms—I was delighted when that appointment was made, and it is a shame that she is not here today.

Julie Kirkbride: At the risk of appearing rude about some of my hon. Friends, Lady Thatcher was voted leader of the Conservative party almost exclusively by men, and that is an even greater achievement than the hon. Lady implied.

Jo Swinson: Absolutely. The hon. Lady is quite right.
	I intend to draw my remarks to a close shortly, because there are many hon. Members present who want to make contributions and I am keen to hear them. We have made a lot of progress, but there is still so much more to do. One problem is that although we have debates and discussions about equality, I suspect that we can sometimes put women off. There is a feeling out there that this place is an old boys' club that is full of sexism and that the job is really difficult for women, but a lot of that is not true. Women Members in all parts of the House will say that being an MP is a wonderful job and very suited to the skill sets of women. It is not all about standing up and making speeches. So much of the job is about listening, dealing with constituents' problems and finding ways to work with those from different parties or other agencies in our constituencies to find solutions, and even in this place there is nothing like the sexism that there used to be. Indeed, this job is very enjoyable.
	I sometimes think that we need to make that case more strongly. In December I had an exchange with the Minister for Women and Equality in which I made that suggestion, following it up with a letter to ask whether she thought that a cross-party initiative would be a good idea. She responded in January—I should apologise for not replying yet; my time has been monopolised somewhat by the European Union (Amendment) Bill over the past month—by saying:
	"It would be good if either myself or"
	the Minister for Equality
	"could meet with you to discuss how the parties can work more effectively on this important issue."
	I very much welcome that sentiment. However, rather than having the right hon. and learned Lady or the Minister meet just me, I would hope that we could involve Conservative Members and launch a cross-party initiative looking at how, collectively, we can sell the job of being a Member of Parliament and ensure that we get the message out there and in the media that this is a very enjoyable job to do.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is the image that the House projects of the standard MP? The image that the media give is of a white, middle-class man who looks a bit like a stuffed suit. If my hon. Friend's grouping can persuade hon. Members to change the rules of the House, to make men look slightly less stuffed and starched, there might be a different image of an MP.

Jo Swinson: I would never say that my hon. Friend looked like a stuffed suit.
	A lot can be done. It would be wonderful if the message that went out from this debate was that being an MP is something that women throughout the country with talents to offer should consider and if we used the debate as a starting point to work together on the issue. We should celebrate very much all the achievements and work of women in the past, but look forward to much better representation of women in the future.

Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and I congratulate her on her work to achieve gender balance in her party.
	I was interested in the hon. Lady's comments in what were some quite bad-tempered exchanges about Margaret Thatcher. The theme of my short contribution is what those women who have managed to reach representative positions do for other women. The point, which was roundly and soundly made by my sisters on the Labour Benches, is that one would expect a lot of legislation from a woman in a position of such power as Prime Minister that looked at what women in our society need, but that was missing. That is the point that we were making.

Lynda Waltho: I thank Baroness Thatcher greatly, as I am sure many of my colleagues will, because her policies and the damage that they did in my local community made me become politically active and join the party.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my hon. Friend deeply for that. Many of us on the Labour Benches became politicised and active in fighting for our communities, because we knew that they were under attack.
	The theme of my speech is the responsibility that we have. I feel thoroughly honoured to be on the Labour Benches, and I will ensure that I stick to just 10 minutes, because there are so many sisters on our Benches who are desperate to make contributions that are crucial to the debate about what we do for women.
	The passionate speech that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality made today really got us off to a good start. Talking about women's politics in that passionate way and getting a lot of response is where we want women's politics to be. We still want to have that fire in our bellies that makes us want to go out and fight.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) have been doing fantastic work for women, and it is that kind of work that we should be celebrating today. This debate gives us an opportunity to come together, to take stock and to celebrate the work that has been done. Without doubt, this Government have contributed enormously to women's lives in the UK. We almost always hear the caveat, "Yes, but there's more to be done", but it would be ludicrous if we did not celebrate the very real achievements on domestic violence, on carers and on pensions. It would be utterly ridiculous if we did not acknowledge that work.
	I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to assure us that this debate will happen each year. In my heart, I feel that, as long as she is Leader of the House, that will be the case. This is a crucial opportunity for us to come together. It feels like a special day, when we can come together to discuss the women's issues that we do not get the opportunity to discuss in other forums. I certainly hope that we can continue to celebrate international women's day with these debates in the years to come.
	Prominent figures have been mentioned, including our first woman Prime Minister, but many of us are now looking across the Atlantic at the fantastic prospect of a woman President of the United States. That is important, and women should have many radical role models, but I want to concentrate on the work of the representatives in our communities who encourage women to make their lives more fulfilling. For me, one of the most moving things is to see women in my community being empowered through programmes such as Sure Start. There are women who have not been out of their houses and who have not had much guidance and help from their families, but I have seen them blossom into people who are able to become representatives within the Sure Start movement and set up groups by themselves. I have seen them learn to cook and pass that skill on to younger mothers. We should be encouraging all that. It is easy to talk about the notable women, but we must be there to ensure that this kind of work is happening as well. It would be a dereliction of our duty as women in this House if we did not keep a close eye on ensuring that such women are able to thrive and survive, and to make the most of their lives.
	Interesting things are happening in our communities on issues such as breastfeeding. At one time, it almost became too difficult for women to breastfeed. We were not encouraging them to do so, and we made it difficult in public places. Now, however, we have breastfeeding mentors to encourage new mums to take up breastfeeding. We have the equipment to do it—and I am very pleased that we do—yet we used to discourage it. Now we are giving women the power to encourage it and to increase the numbers of breastfeeding mums. The result will be that our children will be healthier, slimmer and more intelligent. Breastfeeding brings all those benefits to our children. These are the things that truly matter to our communities and that are making a difference to women's lives.
	I also want to mention the work of organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, which I understand is facing funding cuts because of the work that it does. I first came across that organisation when I was involved with a case involving the death of a man who had consistently abused a constituent of mine, Karanjit Ahluwalia. She finally just broke, as she could bear it no longer. As a nurse on night duty, I received the man who was admitted to hospital. Distressing as that incident was, the work of the Southall Black Sisters was invaluable. I seriously hope that the responsible local authority will take a large second look at the funding for that organisation, which helps people in their communities.
	There are many other ways of improving the ability of women to conduct their lives. We are hoping and fighting for a university campus in Crawley. I have a sizeable community of people from black and ethnic minority groups, and I can see what having a university campus in Crawley will do culturally for those who are not going to be encouraged to go away to university. The women from those communities would be able to study technology and all the sciences that we desperately need them to study while remaining at home. That will be a tremendous advantage not just for the economy as a whole, but for those particular women who will be able to achieve their aims. That is yet another Government initiative that I believe will bring huge and fruitful results.
	Let me finish by mentioning the latest life-changing Government decision—to introduce chlamydia screening, which will very quietly reduce the number of women suffering infertility in adulthood as a result of infection in their earlier life. It is a tremendous thing to do. It says a great deal that we Labour Members can stand up and say thank you for what, I think, will be an enormous gift to many women in the future. I hope to see more of that sort of work and as I look around me and see women Members, particularly on the Labour Benches, I know that much more of it will continue into the future.
	The great thing about all this is how much we really enjoy campaigning on these issues. It is fantastic to be able to go into communities and make a difference by joining together with women, wherever they come from, and understanding that, no matter who we are, we have common interests with them. It is great for women to help other women.
	Later this year, I hope to be able to do some work in the emerging democracies with Voluntary Service Overseas, helping women with advocacy and getting them more involved in the democratic system. That, I believe, is our responsibility. I strongly believe that we have been given the privilege of being in this place, but we must then share that benefit with other women so that we continue to get a flow of good women in places where they are able to influence the next generation.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad to be able to begin by agreeing entirely with the final remarks of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). We are very privileged women—indeed, very privileged people—in the western world in terms of the freedoms and the standard of living that we and our families enjoy. We are also privileged people to be elected to this House, so I am very pleased to have this opportunity to mark international women's day. It is the international aspects of today's celebration that matter almost more than anything else. It is our duty and responsibility to give moral support and solidarity to women—and, indeed, men—throughout the world who are fighting to make all countries fairer and more equal places for people to live in.
	I happily acknowledge the enormous efforts made by women and men on all sides of the House—unlike the hon. Member for Crawley, who originally said that she was very pleased about what the "sisters" on the Labour Benches are doing. I acknowledge what they are doing, but I also acknowledge what everyone throughout the House and throughout our democratic system is doing to make our country—and therefore other places where we can exert influence—a more equal and fair society. It is good that we are having this debate today.
	I always insist that there is no such thing as a women's issue. For generations, indeed centuries, men managed to sideline topics with which they did not particularly want to deal, saying "Oh, that's a women's issue; we will appoint so-and-so to deal with it." That applied particularly to such matters as health, child care and families. Those are not women's issues—they are everyone's issues, but men and women often approach things from slightly different directions. I think it is time we had the courage to stand up and dare to say that women do things differently from men.
	I am sure that every woman in the Chamber will at some time have had the experience of being the only woman at a meeting or in an organisation. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) explained very graphically, a woman may make a point differently from the way in which it has been made by all the men, and then all the men will sigh in a man-like way because the woman used slightly different language or a slightly different tone of voice. I hope we are reaching a stage where there is less of that, possibly because of the increased representation of women.

Linda Gilroy: I wonder whether, in those circumstances, the hon. Lady finds that the gentlemen eventually get around to seeing the point.

Eleanor Laing: I do. On some occasions the realisation is more immediate than it is on others.
	I agree with much of what has been said today. For nearly 11 years I have been saying things—as have many of my colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—and only now are we beginning to be listened to. Better late than never, though, and it is because we have the courage of our convictions that we keep going and will achieve what we set out to do.
	I want to put one thing on record. On occasions such as this Lady Thatcher is always mentioned, with great affection and respect by Conservative Members and in different terms by Labour Members—although I must say that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) was generous in pointing out that the Thatcher Government did achieve some things for women. I will always argue that the fact that Lady Thatcher and her Government turned around the country's fortunes in the 1980s inevitably benefited the 52 per cent. of the population who are women just as much as it benefited the rest of the country.
	I have already mentioned the expansion of educational opportunities. If there is one thing that makes a difference to a girl approaching womanhood, it is having the opportunity of a good education. That is what makes it possible for a woman to compete with men who have had a good education. If we do not get education right, we can never achieve the equality that we all want. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is shaking her head. She cannot possibly disagree with my view that education is the most important tool that can be given to anyone, male or female, to help them contribute to the society that we all want to build.
	The main thing that Margaret Thatcher did, of course, was to be there. She was Prime Minister, and therefore no one can say that a woman cannot be elected to Parliament and cannot be a successful and effective Member of Parliament.
	Last week, I was fortunate enough to be the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York. I was sent there with the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), and we attended the meeting for IPU representatives. It was an important meeting, and it is a very important commission. It has been taking place for some 52 years. I felt honoured to take part, representing the UK Parliament along with the right hon. Lady. It was extremely important to be there.
	We in the United Kingdom are in a privileged and important position; I am not being complacent in saying that, as I accept that there is a lot of work yet to do for women in our country, Europe and the wider western world. However, when one attends such a UN meeting and looks around what is an enormous chamber—possibly somewhat bigger than this Chamber—filled with people, mostly women, from countries all over the world, one realises what a fortunate position we are in, because many of the battles have been won here. Some Members have already referred to the work of the suffragettes and the fact that we are celebrating 80 years of women's suffrage. Many countries throughout the world that were represented are far behind our position, as is universally known. I had an opportunity to discuss that with their representatives last week. In attending meetings such as the commission, we can make the important contribution of offering moral support and solidarity to those who still have so much to fight for in their countries.
	There were two main themes to the conference: increasing the representation of women and gender budgeting. We have discussed the first of those themes at length and I shall not reiterate the points that have already been made, but something struck me as ironic. Inside the UN building there was much talk of the importance of increasing the representation of women, and many people said— sadly, somewhat naively—"If only we had more women in our Parliament, we could change this and change that, and make such a difference." Meanwhile, outside in the rest of America there are people raising money—$34 million in February alone—to pay for advertisements to try to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President of the United States of America. If we were to follow the representation argument to its logical conclusion, merely having Hillary Clinton, a woman, as President of the USA—and, therefore, arguably the most important person in the world—would solve many of the ills of the world. I am afraid that I would argue that having Hillary Clinton as President of the USA would cause more problems than it would solve, not only for America but for its position in the rest of the world. I will not go into that in any greater detail, but it is somewhat ironic that those two major debates were going on at the same time.
	What bothers me far more, however, is the representation of women in this House of Commons. I absolutely agree with much of what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said about its being our duty to go out and be evangelical about encouraging other women to enter the House of Commons. Many of us in the Conservative party are doing that; we are encouraging women to stand for election, and to become involved in politics not only at local level, where we have many good women, and not just in other organisations, but here in Parliament itself.
	I hope, however, that the Minister for Women and Equality, who is also Leader of the House, will take account of the following point. If we are to encourage more women with children, and men with family responsibilities and who come from different sorts of backgrounds, to enter this House and be devoted as full-time Members, taking care of their constituency duties, their duties to this House, and their duties to their families, we must give them the financial wherewithal and the practical support to be able to balance all of those duties.

John Bercow: I am listening with interest and respect to my hon. Friend's speech. In the light of what she has said, does she share my frustration and disappointment that, notwithstanding the commentary on the subject over at least the past decade, this House still has not got a properly functioning crèche for the benefit of Members and, importantly, of staff?

Eleanor Laing: Yes. As ever, my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Crèche facilities are part of it, but this is about the whole attitude towards Members of Parliament, and not only women Members. Let us be practical and honest about family responsibilities. The burden of caring for family, whether it be children, elderly relatives or someone who is sick, falls far more often on women than men. I do not like to personalise things, but I feel duty bound to use myself as an example in this case, because I am the example I know best. Two thirds of my net salary as a Member of Parliament is spent on child care costs. People say, "Can't you get grandparents to help? Where is your husband? Haven't you got a sister?" Such questions are nonsense. I am divorced from my husband. It is no wonder that he did not want to spend every weekend doing constituency duties, as I was happy to do. There was no reason why he should have wanted to go to coffee mornings every Saturday—I do not blame him.

John Bercow: My wife does not want to go to them.

Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend says that his wife does not want to go to them, and I do not blame her either. I am devoted to my constituency, but there is no reason why my ex-husband should have wanted to be devoted to it. Although he is an extremely good father who spends a lot of time with our son, I, like most other mothers, have the prime duty of looking after my son. No grandparents are around, because sadly my mother and father both died, and my brother lives abroad, but in any case why should one seek voluntary family help to carry out one's duties properly?
	People never consider what happens every time this House sits past 6 pm. I am very much in favour of this House sitting all the hours there are, because it is only by using time that Members of Parliament can hold the Government to account. I am happy to be here until midnight, but not many Members of this House and not many members of the Executive have to consider how much it costs per hour to pay someone to look after one's child while one is undertaking parliamentary duties.
	Dare I say it, but members of the press and media have no idea what they are talking about when they criticise Members of Parliament for being overpaid or for using their allowances one way or another. They have no idea what it costs to keep two houses, look after a family and be diligent in all one's duties in these different areas of life.
	We must consider what would happen if we gave in and said that we would not fund Members of Parliament properly for carrying out their work and duties owing to a press campaign that arose because a small minority—a very small percentage—of Members of Parliament did not behave responsibly as far as finances were concerned. Many of us have worked hard over the years to bring more women, more people from ethnic minorities, and more people who are not professional people or lawyers—I am a lawyer; that is the downside—into Parliament. We have worked to bring a much more varied group of people into Parliament to make it truly representative of the people of Britain. That cannot be done unless things are properly resourced. I sincerely hope that the Minister for Women and Equality will take my remarks seriously when she considers the part of this debate for which she has not been present.
	The conclusion of the IPU meeting was a very good one. It was that increasing the representation of women is important in bringing about the better conditions for women that we are all seeking, but the economic power of women is far more important. We all know that an increase in women's economic power is what will actually make a difference in the long run. That is why flexibility in employment is so important, so that women can earn a living, stand up for themselves and use their voice, and so that they do not have to be dependent.
	The second part of the IPU meeting was about gender budgeting, which is a very good idea and I hope that the Government will consider it. Gender budgeting means that legislation is assessed in terms of its gender impact, just as we have always considered the economic aspect and now look much more carefully at the environmental impact. I suggest that to the Government as a good idea.
	I do not wish to take any more of the House's time as many hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise in advance if I cannot be here for the end of the debate. I have mothering duties to undertake, and one small six-year-old simply does not understand why I have to be here for such long hours this week. I would rather be answerable to him than to the Government or my Whips.

Katy Clark: I welcome the fact that this debate is taking place in this Chamber today. On previous occasions, it has not always been possible to have the international women's day debate in the Chamber, and it is a sign of the progress that has been made and the impact that the Leader of the House has had that we are having it here today. We should all welcome that.
	I shall be brief, because several hon. Ladies wish to contribute. I do not consider it discriminatory to say that, because international women's day is about women. It is about the struggles of women and it is a celebration of women's role. We have the debate in recognition of the fact that women have faced historic and unprecedented discrimination.
	International women's day emerged from two movements. The first was the suffrage movement, which campaigned for women to have a vote and a say in how society was run. The second was made up of campaigns against the exploitation of women in the workplace. The history of international women's day shows that the two were strongly linked. The first record we can find is of New York women workers in the textile and clothing industry who demonstrated about their low wages and poor working conditions on 8 March 1857. Fifty years later, in 1907, a demonstration was held in New York to commemorate the 1857 demonstration and to call for votes for women and an end to child labour and workshops. It was the movements around May day, in support of votes for women and against exploitation of women in the work force that led to 8 March being regarded as the day on which to celebrate what women were achieving, to recognise their struggles, and to act as a focus on what women wanted to change. Many men played a significant role in many of the victories that women achieved, but on international women's day it is fitting that we celebrate the women who put so much into fighting not only for themselves but for their sisters.
	I welcome the fact that the debate is being held in the Chamber. We have discussed women's representation in the Chamber, and many Labour Members spoke of the significant advances in women's representation in the Labour party over recent years. We remember the hugely important events of 1997, when so many women were elected here. The Labour party is justly proud of the fact that in the Scottish Parliament it has always had 50 per cent. representation of women, and it is right that all parties discuss how we ensure the better representation of women. The Labour party in Scotland adopted positive discrimination, women-only shortlists and the twinning of constituencies, whereby some seats were women's seats. It recognised it had to do something—the other methods that had been tried and for which women had campaigned over so many years had not succeeded.
	I was selected on an open shortlist, but the Labour party organises itself to ensure that women enjoy parity on shortlists, and the transferable vote system encourages women who are coming through the process. It is important that we talk about that and about getting more women into this building, but it is even more important that we talk about what women must do to ensure that they have a full say over every aspect of their lives and are represented in every walk of life. That is not about women being different or the same, but about women being human beings and having a full say over the way in which they live.
	We in Britain are very lucky. We have heard much today about the problems that women still face in Britain, and I agree with what has been said about pay inequality, discrimination in the workplace and the lack of child care not only for Members of Parliament but for women throughout the country, which affects so many women's lives and their opportunities. Women play a massive role in Britain and are often at the forefront of community organisations, fighting for their communities.
	On international women's day we must celebrate what women have achieved and acknowledge that there is still a long way to go. We must also say that what we in Britain have achieved is what we expect in every country. We are all aware of the discrimination that women still experience and of the fact that they still do not play the full role in society that they should, but when we look around the world we see that we are lucky in the choices that we have. In Saudi Arabia, for example, women have so few rights and hardly any voice. They are not allowed to walk unaccompanied on the street, to drive a car or to join many professions, so it is easy to see that we in this country have come a long way.
	International women's day is about not only celebration but struggle and protest, which is how it came about and why in 1975 the United Nations decided to make it a day to be recognised throughout the world. Today, we should be saying that women should have a far stronger role in the world and a far stronger voice. If we achieve that, the benefit will be felt by not only women but humanity, and the world will be more civilised.
	I hope that next year a debate on these issues will again be held in this Chamber, enabling all Members to raise their voices about why we must ensure that women secure more victories.

Maria Miller: This debate has reaffirmed the fact that gender equality is still relevant and important throughout the country. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and I wish to pick up her point about the central role that women play in many community organisations. I am sure that that is the case in her constituency, as it is in mine, so I am perplexed that it does not translate to more women wanting to stand for Parliament. I shall touch on that point later.
	There have been many good contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) particularly inspired me and reminded me that we share the fact that other individuals put our names forward for candidacy for Parliament. I have my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) to thank for the fact that I am here today, sitting on the green Benches.
	The Minister mentioned that she was elected in 1982, when there were 10 Labour women in Parliament and 13 Conservative. I was doing my A-levels at the time, and I remember that election vividly. One of those 13 Conservative women inspired me to be here today—my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. We might disagree about what she contributed to this country, but I believe that she contributed hugely to the success that we continue to enjoy in some ways. She certainly served as a role model to me in respect of what women can achieve, and we should not forget that.
	This debate is still highly relevant, perhaps because one in three women in our country still feel that there is a long way to go on gender equality. I would never suggest that there is a sense of complacency about it on either side of the House, but we should not forget that a huge number of women still feel that there is much more to do. Parliament has a vital role to play in making women feel that there is working equality. Parliament's authority and legitimacy is based on representing the nation as it is today, not as it was in the past, so having more women in the House is an important challenge that we should all take on.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said, women and men have different priorities. A stronger, more resilient voice for women in the House of Commons means that women throughout the country can feel that matters of importance to them are being addressed. We do not suffer alone from the under-representation of women in political life. Again, my hon. Friend mentioned that point. I have examined some work by the World Economic Forum, which speaks of a "political power gap" in the ratio of men and women in Parliaments and in Ministerial positions. We have made great progress in this country, and more women are in Parliament, but we still suffer from what the WEF calls an 86 per cent. political power gap, because of the lack of women that we still have in the House. I am not sure whether I find it reassuring that even countries such as Sweden, Norway and Finland, which we hold up all too often as the epitome of what we should be aiming for, still suffer a 50 per cent. power gap according to the WEF. Many women who are elected do not go on to have powerful and influential positions.
	I am concerned that we have bypassed some of the fundamental reasons why there are not more women sitting in Parliament. Before I turn to those reasons, we should try to understand why such a large proportion of women feel that we have not gone far enough towards gender equality. Hon. Members have already cited many of the pressing problems that predominantly affect women in this country today. Women in part-time work—the type of work that most often fits in with family life and caring responsibilities—face a gender pay gap that continues at almost 40 per cent. It is little wonder that in the past year alone 28,000 sex discrimination cases have gone to an employment tribunal. That figure, which has doubled in the past 12 months, is unacceptable. We have to look for ways to ensure that women throughout the country have access to good-quality part-time work. Many businesses have already seen the strong business case for that, but there has been a failure to deliver in too many areas.
	Others have spoken about flexible working. We have made some progress on that, and it is heartening to hear Ministers say that there is interest in extending the right to flexible working to those with older children, although I share the concern voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that mixed messages seem to be emerging from the Government on that point.
	Looking at health matters, particularly the treatment of cancer, we find that only three in 10 women aged between 50 and 70 receive breast cancer screening every three years, despite Government policy on that, and the position has worsened since 2001. Staffing levels in maternity services and wards are causing women considerable concern, but are not being dealt with in a way that many women feel is appropriate. We have also touched on the subjects of women in prison, domestic violence, and problems such as the number of reported rapes increasing while cuts are being made to funding for rape crisis centres. Those are many of the reasons why many women feel that the matter of equality has been incompletely addressed by our legislative body.
	Nobody who has spoken today advocates sticking with the status quo and not finding new ways to increase female representation in this place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead outlined some of the excellent measures that our party has established, and all the other parties have tackled the issue in ways that are appropriate for them, but I am concerned that we may be dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause.
	There was a great influx of women to Parliament in 1997 as a result of the Labour party's change in its selection criteria, but I was worried to see some figures the Library produced for me on men and women's average length of service as MPs. In the decade and a half to 2005, the average length of service for women declined from 13.7 years to 11.5 years. That is at odds with the situation for men, whose average length of service remains about 17 years. We should be concerned about the fact that although more women are coming into Parliament, they are not staying as long as men. To pick up on the comments made by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), we need to make sure that age and experience are valued. Parliament benefits from the continuing contributions of those who have been here for several years. When considering how this place operates, we should see whether that problem can be tackled.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Lady agree that the reason for that phenomenon may be that, generally, in the Labour party, women have been selected in marginal seats? If the Conservative party intends to focus only on marginal seats, the women elected may also not last. What we need are long-term solutions that ensure that we get women into a wide range of seats, including very safe seats.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady makes a good point—that is a factor—but I assure her that in my party women are not being selected only for marginal seats. On the contrary, we have a number of excellent women candidates in seats now held by Conservative MPs who I am sure will join us here in the Commons after the next election. However, I understand how that is a problem. Unfortunately, it will probably be a problem for her party after the next election.

Lynda Waltho: I asked the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) how many women in the Conservative party have been placed in safe Conservative seats, and she was not able to answer. Can the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) do so?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We do not place candidates in seats; they are selected for seats. It is difficult for anybody to say what a safe seat is. Nowadays, I do not think that any of us should refer to them in that way. There are well over 50 women who we think will be elected to Parliament at the next election, but really it is down to the electorate to decide, on the day of the election, how many end up here.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it gives me the opportunity to confirm, as she did, that a number of our women candidates are standing for seats currently held by Conservatives, or new seats that are defined as Conservative seats. Those women include Priti Patel in Witham. I am sure that we are all very pleased that Helen Grant, who has not fought a seat before, and who was at one stage involved with the Labour party, is to succeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). That is exactly the sort of seat that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) is talking about.

Maria Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, and for giving details; that is most helpful.
	I should like to turn the attention of the House to the critical issue of whether there are enough women who use politics and being a Member of Parliament as a way of contributing to their community and to public life. Many women have significant roles in organisations that play a part in supporting our many different communities, but what perception do those women have of the House of Commons? Why are they not choosing it as a way of putting themselves forward? The House needs to give a little more consideration to that issue. Many other organisations have had to deal with the issue of how they get more women to put themselves forward for jobs.
	I recently took a look at the medical profession, which was long the domain of men. One could say that there are parallels between the challenges dealt with by women entering medicine and those dealt with by women coming to the House of Commons. In 1963, just 29 per cent. of students applying for medical school were women, but today the figure is two thirds. Indeed, some predict that women will become the dominant force in the medical profession by 2012. That is because the profession has changed the selection process to decrease discrimination against women, and has looked at increasing the number of women applicants. It has also looked into making changes to medicine as a career for women. The change is particularly acute in the general practitioner sector. In 2005, 40 per cent. of GPs were women, compared with 29 per cent. in 1995. The House will be interested to know that the percentage of practitioners working part time has more than doubled in the past 10 years, and has reached 27 per cent. That may well be part of the reason why the role of women in GPs' surgeries has increased so much.

Katy Clark: rose—

Maria Miller: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I really need to make progress.

Katy Clark: Is the hon. Lady aware that until the 1950s and 1960s, many universities had quotas for the maximum number of women whom they would accept as entrants to the medical profession, and does she agree that we have come a tremendous way?

Maria Miller: I would probably be straying too far from the subject of today's debate if I went into the details of that point, but the hon. Lady raises an important issue. We should understand the important role that women can play in professions such as medicine, and try to tackle the barriers that have stopped women from entering such professions. We could use what we learn from that to encourage more women to enter the House of Commons.
	I do not mean to underestimate what the Modernisation Committee has already done in trying to identify ways of attracting a broader cross-section of people to the House. Importantly, some of its suggestions have focused on the need to improve the running of this place rather than on the convenience of Members of Parliament. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, having more women in this place will make it more effective and, importantly, more representative of the country as a whole.
	However, perhaps we should not consider only changes to working hours and holidays when thinking about how to modernise the House. Such changes have made up more or less the bulk of the reforms, but we could do far more important things to send out strong messages to women that they should consider politics as a career. What more can be done to attract women to the House? The issue is not only about changing the working hours or the trappings of Parliament; we need to understand how we can change the culture—or perceived culture—of this place, so that it is more attractive to women.
	The Minister's approach was not a good example of how debates such as these usually run. I have been in Parliament for three years, and in my experience these debates have been a positive experience and had a positive tenor. I was disappointed by the right hon. and learned Lady's contribution. I hope that, on reflection, she decides that a different approach would be appropriate.
	Let us be honest: this place has not caught up with how people expect Parliament to conduct itself today. There is an enormous opportunity for the House to consider that point, particularly in the light of current considerations about pay, pensions and how we present payments for our offices and staff. Perhaps we could consider how we should revise those aspects of how we conduct ourselves, to bring ourselves into a modern-day way of doing business.
	The House could also consider how debates are generally conducted and how they are perceived by people outside, including women who might be considering politics as a career path. Many of my women friends think that I am nuts to have taken this job. One asked me why I would want to put myself through it all when I had such a good job already. I put myself through it because I believe that this is the most rewarding job that anybody can have in this country.

Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Lady consider something closely related to her last point? Three years ago, I did a survey that showed that one reason why women do not come forward—certainly from my part of the world—is that they do not feel that they can make a difference. How we conduct ourselves here is an important way of showing how we can make a big difference.

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady's excellent point picks up on my next one. I hope that the House does not treat this observation in a party political way, but this week the House has been debating the referendum on the European treaty—a political commitment made by all parties which has not been followed through. Hon. Members will disagree on the issue, but outside this place the perception is that we make pledges and promises but do not carry them through. We should all think about the reactions to that among our constituents and people who are considering becoming MPs. To pick up on the very point that the hon. Lady has just made, I should say that making a difference is about making a promise and carrying it through. I was very disappointed with the Government's response on that issue.

Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Miller: I am sorry, but I have been generous to the hon. Lady.

Linda Gilroy: rose—

Maria Miller: I am sorry, but I need to make progress.
	I believe that many women are deterred from putting themselves forward because they are unsure about whether they would feel comfortable being part of this organisation. However, we have an enormous opportunity to change women's minds on the issues and make important and radical changes to how we do business—such as our not voting on our own pay, changing our final salary pension scheme and bringing a business approach to how we run our offices and support staff, who are so vital to our constituents and how we serve their needs. We should make sure that we talk about costs, not expenses—the cost of employing staff is important; we should not term it an expense. But it is most important that we are transparent in everything we do. This changing culture could be a big opportunity to show women that this is a career choice that they should be taking seriously.
	Finally, we should all lift our eyes and take note of the world around us. The world does not expect us to continue to conduct ourselves as we do at the moment. We must challenge the way in which we allow the media to portray how we do business here. All of us in the House here today know that we work consensually in our Committees to get the change that is needed. All too often we allow the media to portray us as operating solely in the way we do at Prime Minister's Question Time. That is not the way we do business and we need to change that today.

Fiona Mactaggart: In a way, I am disappointed that we are celebrating 90 years of women having the vote. We need to remember that, 90 years ago, women did not get the vote on an equal basis with men. A 21-year-old man could vote but the women who could vote had to be 30, property owners and so on. We must recognise that some of these celebrations of equality are about us tolerating things that are half a cup, but not the whole.
	If we look at what has happened in the 90 years since then, there have been 290 women elected to this Parliament, 186 of whom were from my party. Despite many years of Conservative government, in only eight years were there more women Conservative MPs than women Labour MPs. I do not say that to be smug; I believe it is partly because of the values of the Labour party that more women have been selected. It is also partly because we grasped the nettle of women-only shortlists, which, let me say, is a nettle in our party, too; do not think it is not.
	I would like to praise other parties; having rejected that nettle, they have had a squeeze and, as women know very well, when we cannot get in the front door, we get resourceful and find a way through the back door. It is my judgment that the training programmes for women put on by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats outshine what my party has been able to do. It is a pity that we have not done more and it is great that they have done that. We should now steal their ideas and do more.
	When I was elected, I was one of that crowd of 101 women elected to these Benches. It was a strange experience. In January 2000, I wrote a paper that said that my analysis of the problem was that because women in Parliament were the exception to the norm, every woman in Parliament carried the burden of representing women as a class of MP. Every time a woman MP made a mistake, everyone said, "They would, wouldn't they? That is what women MPs are like." One carried the burden of representing the class of women as MPs. I think that that has changed. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) reminded us that the sexism that she faced was not as extreme as that faced by many of my colleagues when they were elected in 1997.
	We were very excited to be elected. We had that photograph, which caused us to be dubbed "Blair's babes." I have often wondered what the problem was with that. Partly, it was that we looked like pilot fish around the Prime Minister, but it was also that we never told people what electing all these women would achieve. The consequence was that every woman everywhere pinned on us, as though on a dartboard, their hopes of what a new Government could do for women. Although we have doubled child care and made massive strides on issues such as domestic violence, we have inevitably disappointed because we did not name what difference we would make.
	One of the things that I have learned from that analysis is that we should be specific about what the change in women's representation will achieve. We should acknowledge, though, that having more women in Parliament has made a difference. We have achieved changes that would not otherwise have been achieved. I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), who has had to leave. It was 4 am, I think, in the debate on the Education Bill when she moved an amendment on beating children. I think of the former Member for Stourbridge and her child protection work. I think of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) who has tabled a Bill on special educational needs. All three examples focus on children, but it is not inevitable that women concentrate on children. Legislation on issues that tend to be overlooked is pushed through by women.

Linda Gilroy: I wonder if my hon. Friend agrees with me. When I am asked what difference we have made, I often say that the difference was made before we ever got into this place, when we put together our manifesto. It is not just the women in Parliament, but the women throughout our party who made a difference to the programme that we have followed for the past 11 years.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. I plan to end my speech by reminding Ministers that it is important to reach out—that that connection between women in the community and women in Parliament, between women in the roots of parties and women in the Chamber, is one of the sources of our strengths.
	I remember speaking, not long after we had been elected, to the Clerks of the Defence Committee. I asked whether having women on the Committee—there had been none previously—had made a difference. "Oh yes," they said. "We never used to speak about the wives and children of soldiers. We only talked about how big the bombs were. Now we focus on something that is critical, and it is now a no-brainer. We talk about it often—the fact that looking after the families of soldiers is critical to the effectiveness of our defence forces."
	There are many examples. My favourite one is the woman who generated the only ever stealth tax cut, when my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) banged on about VAT on sanitary protection for so long that my right hon. Friend who is now the Prime Minister abolished VAT on sanitary protection in the Budget and managed not to mention it when he did it.
	Women have filled the top jobs. Baroness Thatcher has been frequently mentioned by Conservative Members. We hate her politics, but I admire her for having been the first ever woman Prime Minister. Since then we have had, in my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), the first ever woman Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) is the first woman Home Secretary, and I am betting on the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to fill the last of the great offices of state and become the first woman Chancellor.
	We have shown that in Parliament women have made a difference, but we have missed some tricks. The Nolan Committee, which changed the way in which public appointments are made, has created a context for public appointments where, in many cases, women are disadvantaged. Let us put it brutally. The kinds of experience that women bring to the table—the experience of the school gate or of queuing at the doctor's surgery—are not valued by Monitor, the body that approves trusteeships on hospital trusts, as a result of which trustees include many very impressive business men, most of whom had private health insurance before they got on to hospital boards, but very few people who have been through the grind of waiting for health care and experiencing it in a community.
	That poses real risks. The equality Bill creates an opportunity to do something about public appointments, not merely to ensure gender equality, but to think about the qualification for public appointment. Is it having run a big business, or is it having experienced public services first hand?
	I want to discuss briefly an issue raised by other hon. Members on which women's experience is different from that of men, which is violence. Men are more likely to be victims of violent crime than women, but the way in which women experience violence is quite different. The classic example is domestic violence, where 77 per cent. of the victims are women. On average, those victims have been assaulted 35 times before they report it to the police. Women as victims of domestic violence and of rape, and as victims of violence in other areas, face an accusation that men who are victims never face: "She asked for it." I am afraid that although things have changed, that attitude is still much too common. I am glad that John Yates pointed out, in an interview published earlier this week in  The Guardian, that the culture in the police—the failure to take early evidence and so on—is one of the contributory factors to our lack of success in securing effective levels of rape convictions.
	I strongly urge Ministers to ensure that we get an effective national reporting line for rape. I wonder whether the national telephone number that we use for NHS Direct might be a possible way of dealing with this issue. One of the problems with a local helpline is that most of us would not carry the number around in our pocket, and any woman can be raped. We need a national number that everyone knows about, through which such reporting can be done quickly, and through which women can be supported on the question of whether or not they want to go to the police. Many women are frightened of going to the police in the first place.
	As hon. Members know, I have spoken about prostitution previously, and in my usual way, I am running out of time today. I managed to raise the issue in one contribution where I was able to speak for only two minutes, and in another where I managed only 20 seconds. In my view, prostitution is another example of violence against women. Most prostituted women have been abused, and most of them are tricked into prostitution by men who groom them, get them addicted and use their power over them. A terrifying number of them have been trafficked into prostitution, and it is a very difficult thing to talk about.
	When I was a Minister and suggested that in cases where two women worked together in a flat, we should stop prosecuting either of them for brothel-keeping—a crime that carries a sentence of 14 years because it often involves so much wicked exploitation of trafficked women—I was called "Madam Minister" by the tabloid newspapers.  The Sun even sent five so-called "tarts" round to my flat in Slough, saying, "How would you like to live next door to one of these?" Now that I am arguing that we should prosecute men for demanding that women sleep with them for payment, I am called a prude.
	That is better, I suppose, than 20 years ago, when I was a campaigner in the student union against violence against women, and the student newspaper of Oxford university published a photograph of me with the caption, "Would you rape this woman?" Those attitudes have changed to some extent, but there is still a thought that rape is actually—

Eleanor Laing: rose—

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady seems to be trying to intervene.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she agree that it was a disgrace that she was given 20 seconds to put before the House the important issue of how we deal with prostitution and trafficking? I hope that she accepts that many of us in my party greatly commend the work she has been doing. I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of that fact and make time for the House to discuss this important subject, which the Government appear to be afraid to bring to this Chamber.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Lady is not being fair. My Government have done more on this issue than any Conservative Government ever have. I do not think that they are afraid. They have been courageous about the issue, and one thing that we have succeeded in doing—the Leader of the House has been at the forefront of this process—is changing the terms of debate. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), who is no longer in his place, put forward the canard that we can somehow regulate the trade in women's bodies to make it safe. The evidence from countries where that happens is profound and shows that it increases criminality, exploitation and the number of women who die. Prostituted women are 40 times as likely as any other woman to die a violent death.

Jo Swinson: Regardless of whether it is right to prosecute men for buying sex, the hon. Lady's proposal as a Minister not to prosecute women who try to work in a safer environment in premises rather than on the street was a good one. Prosecuting women and forcing them on to the streets, where they are less safe and do not have recourse to people who can support and help them if they get into difficulty, is certainly the wrong way round.

Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed, it is. The police can deal with whether to prosecute. As a result of the prostitution strategy, the police are now targeting men more effectively. It is no longer only the Cleveland police who target kerb crawlers; other police forces do the same, and there is a reduction in, although not an elimination of prosecutions for brothel-keeping when more than one woman who sells herself is in a flat. People realise that that offence is designed to deal with the traffickers and exploiters.
	There is a risk for Labour in government of some things ending up in the "too difficult" box. I do not accuse the Women's Ministers of that—they have been brave and bold. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality has been an effective cheerleader in, for example, dealing with newspaper advertisements for women. However, it is shocking that the clauses in the Criminal Justice Bill on getting rid of fines for prostitution have quietly been dropped while clauses that were drafted long after them have been pursued in the other place. I understand that the Bill has to get through to tackle a possible problem in the prisons; nevertheless, we should not allow those matters to slip away.
	I know from advancing these arguments that it is possible to change public perceptions. I worry that, in government, one can fall into the trap of believing that the only way to change things is through new laws. I believe that our Government can change things by changing the way that people view things. It is inconceivable that a student newspaper would do now what the Oxford newspaper did to me. However, it is still conceivable that a jury would believe that a victim of rape asked for it. We will not change that by legislation. We will help to end it by better prosecution, by the work that we are doing with specialist prosecutors, and by dealing with cases better, but the big challenge for any Government is ensuring that we continue to tackle difficult issues that people do not want to discuss. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) talks about forced marriages to people who pretend that they do not exist. We must have the courage to keep banging the drum because if we do not, attitudes will remain the same as they were 90 years ago.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye and we are now running out of time. If hon. Members try to restrict their remarks to 10 minutes or even a little less, we will do our best to get as many speakers in as possible.

John Bercow: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made a trenchant, candid and persuasive speech. For me, it was no more persuasive than when she reminded the House of the effect of more women in this place on both the communities that they represent and the country as a whole. I was casting my mind back to some of the people to whose past contributions and effectiveness she referred and I did not disagree with any of the examples that she adumbrated.
	In an earlier, wide-ranging and similarly powerful speech, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made the fair point that parties must have the space in which to determine their approach to increasing the number of female Members of Parliament. With that I do not disagree.
	Nevertheless, I suppose that my starting point is that I am an empiricist. I tend to follow Edmund Burke in thinking that one should not wallow in the realms of metaphysical abstraction, but look at the evidence. What does it tell us? What happened? What was the outcome? The reason why, a little over five years ago, I came to the conclusion that my party ought to adopt all-women shortlists was simply that when we look at the evidence from across the world, we see that no other instrument has been remotely comparably effective in ratcheting up the level of female representation. We do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire was absolutely right to stress that there are all sorts of other elements in the equation. There must be a family-friendly environment and people who are willing to entertain the prospect of a woman, and we have to rule out sexist language, sexist lines of questioning, sexist and intimidatory behaviour, and so on. But I simply think that all-women shortlists can make a decisive difference. The governing party has demonstrated that to its benefit and doubtless to the benefit of the country, too.
	The other step that we could take—it is frankly lamentable that after all these years of discussion we have failed to do this—is to institute a proper, fully functioning and adequate crèche facility in the House. I know that I made that point in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), but I am surprised that that has not happened, because the Modernisation Committee has done a good job in many respects and it seems extraordinary that that idea should keep slipping through the net.

Lynda Waltho: I would like to add my support for that demand. One of the reasons my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House saw so many babies in the Whips Office the other night is that so many of my colleagues brought their babies in when they came for the vote, but are not allowed to take them through the Lobby, even though all the babies were being breast fed—although not at the time, obviously. That is an example of the inflexibility of this place and one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would receive my full support.

John Bercow: I understand the hon. Lady's irritation at that. I have encountered a similar situation in chairing a Public Bill Committee. I felt very sorry for the hon. Member concerned, who kept having to go in and out of the room. As a humble and rather junior member of the Chairmen's Panel, I simply was not empowered to do anything about the situation, but I thought that that level of rigidity and resistance must be wrong.

Jo Swinson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has co-sponsored an early-day motion about a crèche, which is an issue that I, too, have raised in the House. However, although those hon. Members who have turned up for today's debate on international women's day are supportive almost by default, does he not lament the fact that the issue, whenever it is raised, is often met with load groans from certain hon. Members who are perhaps living in a previous century?

John Bercow: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to those antediluvian souls who can still periodically be found in the House. She is right and makes a fair point, but the number of such people is in marked decline and the situation is improving all the time.

Simon Burns: rose—

John Bercow: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend, the distinguished representative of Her Majesty's Opposition Whips Office, wants to underline that point via an intervention. I am happy for him to do so.

Simon Burns: What the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said really struck a chord, because back in 1987, which was a generation ago, in my naiveté, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and the late Mo Mowlam tabled an early-day motion calling for a crèche here, because more and more hon. Members had children of school and pre-school age. The reaction from our colleagues was indeed antediluvian and archaic.

John Bercow: I am not surprised, but I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He knows that I have had my differences with him. I start from a position of almost instinctive prejudice against him, because he is a member of the Whips Office and I am not very enthusiastic about Whips. However, my hon. Friend is something of a progressive and he is not even very secret about it. I have watched some of the things he has done in recent times and heard some of the statements that he has made. He is very sound and he ought to be quite explicit, in front of hon. Members who have referred to her today, about the fact that there is no more cogent and enthusiastic champion of Hillary Clinton than him. On that point we are in agreement. It is nice to have a bit of amity in the debate, and I urge hon. Members to note it while it lasts, because I do not agree with Whips very often.
	I am conscious that we have been exhorted by Mr. Deputy Speaker to keep our contributions brief, and lots of other people want to speak, so I shall try, very briefly, to highlight some other points that I think are of interest. First, quite a lot has been said about pay today, and rightly so. I politely put it to right hon. and hon. Members that there are several issues of particular importance involved. One is the national minimum wage. A lot has been said about its benefits, and that is absolutely right. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) knows, I long ago conceded that the Opposition were wrong to oppose it. If it had been introduced at a very high rate, it would have done damage, but it was not, so it did not. It is now very much part of the mosaic of this country that has redounded to the advantage not only of its recipients but of the economy as a whole.
	Let us not be complacent, however. Yes, 660,000 women will benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage, and that is to the credit of the Government, but as we speak, 175,000 women in this country are being paid below the minimum wage. I accept that the Government cannot do it all, as the hon. Member for Slough pointed out, and that it is not all about this House, about Ministers or about new legislation. We have a responsibility, however, to take account of, and try to serve, those who are operating in the twilight zone—perhaps in the informal economy—and are being consistently exploited. Such people are deeply vulnerable. I am not sure whether we should address that through transparency, publicity or public education campaigns—or a judicious combination of all three—but we must not forget those who are simply not getting their just entitlements.

Nadine Dorries: I apologise to my hon. Friend for taking issue with his comment that the minimum wage has not had an impact. Women earning the minimum wage also have to apply for working family tax credit because, unfortunately, the minimum wage does not suffice for people bringing up a family. The minimum wage has therefore had an impact, in that it has hidden the true cost of bringing up a family and the true cost of living for women. If we did not have the minimum wage, perhaps the wages paid to single women would be considerably higher.

John Bercow: I confess that I find that a rather curious line of argument. If my hon. Friend believes that the national minimum wage ought to be significantly higher, we can have that debate, but to blame the minimum wage for contorting the labour market or disguising the costs of bringing up a family seems to be a rather individualistic line of argument.

Brooks Newmark: The sector in which women work most is part-time work, and the real tragedy is that, over the past 10 years, we have seen almost no movement in the differential between what women and men get paid. I believe that that differential is still about 40 per cent.

John Bercow: The differential is enormous, and it is especially great among part-time employees. Ironically, the gender pay gap among part-time workers is even more pronounced in the public sector than in the private sector. Of course, there are all sorts of factors to explain the desperate disparities in pay that continue to exist. There are differences in capacity and skills, for example, resulting from historic under-recognition of the importance of training, career progression, qualifications and educational provision for women. Furthermore, a lot of women are, for understandable reasons, going into part-time work, where the gap is greater. Another factor is that women are often unable to travel as far as men—perhaps because of their other responsibilities—and therefore have a more limited set of jobs from which to choose. We know that 60 per cent. of women work in a very restricted set of occupations, so the opportunities for them are not as great. There is also the problem of occupational segregation—and of segregation within the workplace, to boot. All those things have to be tackled.
	My proposition is that, as far as the Government, Parliament and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are concerned, a distinctive mindset is needed. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that where we are dealing with the private sector, our attitude should be that we are the friend of the well-meaning but uninitiated employer, but the foe of the wilfully non-compliant and incorrigibly discriminatory employer. If we operate on that basis, we will understand the sort of approach that we need to take to improve the situation.
	I would like, if I may, to make two other brief points. Rape crisis centres have been mentioned and I feel very strongly that we could be in danger of kicking out the baby with the bathwater. This is an incredibly important service, operational across the entire country, and it is estimated that something in the order of half of the 32 centres could be lost altogether if the funding cuts that have been decided upon are not reconsidered. Organisations need sustainable funding.
	Let me be unfashionable, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that for my own part, I think that all the political parties have been poisoned to an excessive degree by the religion of localism. It is all very well to talk about local innovation, local variation and local social entrepreneurship, but where we are talking about relatively vulnerable categories of people, among whom I include women and children with special educational needs—a subject in which Members will know I am particularly interested—we often need to have protective mechanisms in place, including ring-fenced funding to ensure that the people at whom the resources need to be directed are able to access them.
	My last point might be of interest to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), if she were still in her place, as I know she has been a passionate champion of women who have suffered from, or are at risk of, domestic violence. The Government have done excellent work on that front, but I have just one caveat. I know that there is talk of changing the rule of no recourse to public funds, and I welcome what I understand the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), is reported to have said earlier this week to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.
	That said, I am bothered about women of uncertain immigration status who do not qualify for public funds, because those people are extraordinarily vulnerable. They are scared witless and dare not walk out on their sadistic, bestial and, in some cases, homicidal partners or husbands unless they know that there is a safe refuge to which they can go. If the Government could turn their mind to that matter—while recognising concern about the pull factor in immigration terms of simply opening the floodgates—and devise a practical, workable and equitable solution to the problem, I think that Amnesty International, End Violence Against Women, the Fawcett Society and a plethora of other organisations committed to the interests of women, and particularly vulnerable women, would applaud the Government, and they would be right to do so.

John Austin: I would like to comment on a couple of points raised by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). First, she referred to her favourite spots in touring the House, mentioning Earl Falkland's statue and the broken sword. When I take constituents around the House, my favourite part is the broom cupboard in the crypt chapel, where Emily Wilding Davison spent census night in 1911. A comment was made earlier about Emmeline Pankhurst's statue not being in the precincts of the House but outside; Emily Wilding Davison actually spent her time here, but it has never been officially acknowledged by the House. The plaque in the broom cupboard was placed there by my old friend Tony Benn, who made it himself. It is time that the House authorities acknowledged the direct action that women took to establish their right to be in this place.
	Secondly, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire referred to relationships and sex education and I think that she was absolutely right. I served on the Health Committee of the previous Parliament, which produced the report on sexual health. I think that we have got it the wrong way round when we talk about "sex and relationship education", as we should be talking about "relationship and sex education"—and the relationship education should start at the earliest possible opportunity.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said that nothing much on the equality front was going on in this place or in government during the 1980s. At that time, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and I were actively engaged in local government. There has been some criticism of local government, and I accept what the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) said about the need for uniformity, but during the 1980s it was pioneering local authorities that pressed forward the agenda of women's rights and racial equality. We were pilloried when we set up women's equality units in our local authorities, but I am pleased to say that our work—not only in supporting and empowering women in the community, but in examining our own procedures and practices to ensure that we were not discriminating and that access was possible within authorities—has now been taken on board as mainstream, and is no longer seen as something rather loony and politically correct.
	Moreover, local authorities were in the vanguard of identifying and campaigning on domestic violence. Edinburgh, for instance, launched the first campaign for zero tolerance of domestic violence, closely followed by the Association of London Authorities, long before the Home Office had taken up the issue. Although there is some rightful criticism of local authorities' failings, I think we should pay tribute to their work in this sphere.
	I will not repeat the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and others relating to the prevalence of domestic violence, or go into the question of whether one woman in four is affected or whether the rate is higher. I will, however, repeat what my hon. Friend said about the number of occasions on which women are victims of violence before reporting it. Some, of course, do not report it at all. Domestic violence involves a higher rate of repeat victimisation than any other crime.
	It is not just in the United Kingdom that domestic violence is a problem. As some Members will know, I am a member of the Council of Europe's Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. We have launched a Europe-wide awareness campaign, which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn)—who was here earlier—helped to launch in Madrid.
	It is estimated that in Europe overall, one in six women over the age of 16 has been in a relationship involving domestic violence. In Belgium, between April and December 2006 nearly 40,000 attacks were recorded by the courts—140 cases a day. According to Amnesty International, in Belgium 70 women die every year. In Portugal, 39 women died as a result of domestic violence in 2006. In Spain, which has some of the most advanced legislation on violence against women in the world, 71 women were killed last year. In France, one woman is beaten to death every four days. According to the United Nations, in Russia one woman is killed by her partner every 35 minutes—that is 14,000 women a year. We need to tackle the issue on a Europe-wide basis, and I am glad that the Government have supported the Europe-wide campaign.
	The majority of victims of domestic violence are women, and the majority of perpetrators are men. Statistically, is must be a fact not only that a substantial number of women in the House have been victims of domestic violence, but that a large proportion of men in the House have been perpetrators of it. The issue is important for men as well as women, because it must involve the perpetrators. I welcome the support given in this country to the white ribbon campaign, which started in north America. A conference organised by the campaign will take place next week. It will deal with the importance of engaging young men directly to challenge the stereotypes involved in violence, sexism, images and roles. Valuable work of that kind is necessary if we are to tackle domestic violence properly.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) mentioned gender budgeting. Until recently I was chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union's gender partnership working group. The hon. Lady mentioned the conference held in New York last week, which was also attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong). The Budget is next week, and it would be very helpful if in introducing it the Chancellor were to tell us what will be the likely gender impacts of the measures. The Government have, of course, introduced new laws. As the Budget rolls forward, Departments come forward with their policies and there is an obligation on them to produce equality impact assessments, as there also now is on local authorities. It is important that we start looking at budgets—not only at the ways they perpetuate gender inequalities, but at how they might be used to address them. I commend to Members the Inter-Parliamentary Union handbook "Parliament, the Budget and Gender".
	In this regard, one thing did happen in this House during the '80s: the Conservative Government signed the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW. There is an obligation on the Government to produce a report every four years to the United Nations. There is much to be commended in the 2007 report, and therefore much on which to congratulate the Government. A lot has been done during that four-year period, including the measures to tackle domestic violence, so the Government have a very good record indeed. I have a question for the Minister, however: what is the parliamentary input into that report that goes to the United Nations? I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I cannot recall there having been a debate in the House about that report on our activities in compliance with CEDAW.
	As Members have said, we should have more frequent debates on some of the issues raised today, including prostitution. I do not necessarily agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said about that subject, but she made some powerful points and we must have an open and honest debate about how to tackle prostitutionand the exploitation of women. We should also, however, have a debate on the Government's reporton CEDAW.
	I agree with the Government that for many people the best way out of poverty is to get into employment, but I get worried sometimes about women with family responsibilities being pressured into taking employment. There should be facilities, support and child care for those who wish to do so, but I do not think we should devalue those women who choose to stay at home and bring up their children and devote their time to their household; nor should we devalue what they do. We should not see that as non-productive.
	The United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women undertook some research into the productivity of such work. It is not negative; it is productive work. Some years ago I was one of the signatories to a campaign called Wages for Housework. We should get away from the idea that it is all very well for women to take a job looking after somebody else's children and getting paid for that, but it is not good for them to stay at home and look after their own children.
	My final point is on representation. The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned the proportion of women in various Parliaments. The IPU produces an annual report on the progress—or otherwise—that countries have made on the number of women in Parliament. Worldwide, the rate is about 17.7 per cent. but at Government ministerial level it is about 16 per cent. There are 144 nations in the league table, and the UK is about 60th, so there is clearly room for improvement. In New York last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham talked about the UK experience, and in particular the positive action the Labour party has taken.
	I accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that there may be many different ways of getting women into Parliament, but I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) that the best and most proven way in a first-past-the-post system is the all-women shortlist, which the Labour party has adopted. I hope that the Minister for Equality will give an assurance that that selection process will be allowed to continue.
	I hope that we will have a debate about how we will influence the monitoring procedures that are to be set up if we do not ratify the trafficking convention soon. When I was chair of the gender partnership group, the IPU authorised a survey of Members of Parliament. A number of survey forms were completed by Members of this House, including both men and women. A report is to be published, which will discuss how men and women parliamentarians work together to advance gender equality. It will examine some of the barriers to women's participation in the political process—it will be a long report. I ask the Minister to have a word with the powers that be so that we can have a debate on it when it is published in April.

Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to follow another thoughtful contribution. I enjoyed a number of the earlier ones, particularly those of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). I echo a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) to the Minister for Women and Equality. Tomorrow, when the Minister compares her contribution with the rather measured and generous spirited speeches in the rest of the debate, she might feel that she slightly let herself down at the beginning of it.
	I wish to highlight three areas where, in my experience, the role of women has been, and is, particularly significant. One is unpopular, one is very popular and a third touches on the international dimension. Hon. Members may be aware that the Yarl's Wood detention and removal centre is based in my constituency. Since the fire of 2002, that centre has been used almost exclusively for women detainees and their children. It is designed on the basis that they should be there for a brief period before being returned in most cases to their country of origin.
	Failed women asylum seekers are not necessarily at the top of everyone's care agenda, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned the issue. How a country treats those who, for one reason or another, are on the margins of society is very much a measure of its humanity. The failed asylum seekers in the Yarl's Wood centre are a mixture. Some have been convicted of crimes, notably those who have been used as drug mules for gangs, whereas others have committed no crime save for wanting to come to this country to have a better life. As the House knows well—it is the common policy of all parts of the House—that in itself is not enough reason for someone to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. Virtually all the women in Yarl's Wood have been through some form of judicial or other procedure that has determined that they have no right to remain here.
	Behind those legalities are issues of human tragedy. It is difficult to be certain in every case as to whether the story being told is true, but there are enough similarities in stories told to non-governmental organisations and representatives across the world to feel that some of them resonate perfectly accurately. They are stories of war, rape, oppression and escape, which are mixed in with the other stories of wanting to flee poor economic circumstances and sometimes the threat of violence from families or others.
	Once the judicial processes have been exhausted, the departure from the UK is not always a quick one. For a number of reasons, a detainee may be at Yarl's Wood for much longer than originally anticipated. They may be there for months rather than weeks—sometimes for more than 12 months. The uncertainty of the departure date considerably increases the mental anguish that these women suffer. Accordingly, my first thought in this debate is for all at Yarl's Wood, both those detained and those who care for them, for they, too, are my constituents.
	It may help the House if I make some quick points about the situation. First, I visited Yarl's Wood recently, after the change from Group 4 to Serco. My impression is that the regime is rather easier than it used to be: formerly closed doors have been opened; the ratio of officers to detainees has decreased; and detainees have much more access to each other and to all parts of the building. The atmosphere is sad, because of the circumstances, but it is not always oppressive. It is only fair that that is recognised by those who are concerned for detainees.
	Secondly, when forced removals have to be carried out, they are always filmed. That is done to protect both the officers involved and the women themselves. Occasionally stories circulate on the internet about a forced removal, which suggest unlawful or unnecessary action on the part of those carrying out that admittedly unpleasant procedure. I have asked the independent monitoring board at Yarl's Wood, which is mostly made up of constituents who are unconnected with the authorities, always to be involved if there is a dispute about a forced removal, so that it can see precisely what has happened and to act as an extra safeguard. I am grateful that the Home Office has agreed to that procedure.
	Thirdly, it is important that the Healthcare Commission has some responsibility for the medical facilities inside Yarl's Wood. We have requested that for some time, but it is still being considered. It is important because the health care provided has not always been appropriate and an extra safeguard would be helpful. Fourthly, I am still not sure that children should be at Yarl's Wood at all. I am keen that the Government and Conservative Front Benchers continue to monitor that.
	Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the befrienders, a group mostly consisting of women, who out of pure charity and kindness have made it their business to visit those who are detained and offer them what support they can while they are at Yarl's Wood. Some detainees have no one to visit them. Some have no idea about how long they will be held and some are very fearful about returning. The befrienders listen, only very rarely making an intervention in a case, because no one can be truly involved with a revolving population of some 300 or so. They provide a necessary lifeline of sanity to those in a very difficult place. All of us who make decisions about the law and through our own actions place others, after due process, behind bars and locked doors owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who visit and care for those who are thereby detained.
	On a lighter note, I wish to extend my thanks to all those women in my constituency who volunteer for some role or other and make the wheels of a largely rural constituency go round. I have had the good fortune over the past 12 months to be a member of the Commission on the Future Of Volunteering, led by Baroness Julia Neuberger, and I appreciated the opportunity to look at the work of volunteering in modern society. We can be proud of the fact that over the past 12 months some 73 per cent. of all adults have volunteered at least once and that 48 per cent. are regularly involved in volunteering at least once a month, which is a good proportion. Women outnumber men in that respect, and women are also more generous in giving to charity.
	Most of us appreciate the work done by volunteers in our constituency. I could pick out many examples, but I shall pick out solely the work of the group Carers in Bedfordshire. It has been established only for a few short years and is energetically run by Yvonne Clark. She has brought together an invaluable advice and information service for those caring for young and old throughout the county. The group goes out looking for those who might be isolated in the rural environment and lack access to facilities, and it is doing a terrific job.
	Baroness Neuberger's commission made several recommendations, which were presented to the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) in January, and I commend the document to all hon. Members. The recommendations include ensuring that volunteering is genuinely open to all and that the Government set up a working party as soon as possible to seek to remove unnecessary or disproportionate obstacles to volunteering—including, for example, repeat criminal Records Bureau checks, entitlement to benefit and the ever present frustrations caused by risk management and health and safety. I hope that the recommendations are considered and accepted as soon as possible.
	Last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) mentioned, the 52nd session of the Commission on the Status of Women took place at the United Nations. I commend all the UK groups that took part. The event is dedicated to gender equality and the advancement of women and takes place under the auspices of the United Nations Economic and Social Councils. Among the groups from the UK was the Conservative Women's Organisation, and I pay tribute to its chairman, Fiona Hodgson, to Pauline Lucas and to my wife, Eve, who went to New York at their own expense to represent Conservative women and take part in the various sessions.
	As we have been talking about women in politics, I wish to digress slightly and say something about those women who are in politics although they may not have been elected, and about Members' spouses, both male and female. In recent weeks, they and the work they do have come under some pressure from external sources. I am immensely proud of my wife, what she does unpaid for the Conservative party and what she does in a paid capacity for my constituents. I could not function without her and she represents many parliamentary spouses who work incredibly hard and without whom none of us would work as effectively as we do.

Brooks Newmark: As well as putting on the record the hard work done by his wife, will my hon. Friend join me in mentioning the splendid work done in the past year by Lady Fiona Hodgson as chairman of the Conservative Women's Organisation?

Alistair Burt: I will indeed. I shall return to Fiona Hodgson's work a little later when I talk about Rwanda.

Eleanor Laing: At the risk of being repetitive, may I say how delighted I am that my hon. Friend took the opportunity to mention the attendance of those three excellent ladies at the UN commission? They put an enormous amount of work into their trip, not only representing the Conservative cause but campaigning on important matters such as domestic violence and trafficking. They deserve to be highly commended for that.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was at the commission and made a distinctive contribution, as she always does. Her comments are certainly appreciated.
	As the House has already heard, subjects such as gender financing for women through microfinance and sexual violence in conflicts were very much a theme of last week. One of the points of such a large-scale conference is what can be learned and brought back. Men's violence against women, violence and oppression in the name of honour and violence in same-sex relationships all need public recognition and to be combated virtually all the time. Women in all countries are fighting violence within relationships daily. In a recent UK survey of 18 to 24-year-olds, one in five boys stated that they saw violence as a normal part of a relationship and one in nine girls said that they would expect violence as part of a relationship; those are depressingly sad statistics.
	The event in New York highlighted how far forward Sweden, Denmark and Norway are with this agenda and how user-friendly their documentation is in comparison with ours. The action plans and documents gave sound practical advice and direction, illustrating what could be done in all countries and making a distinctive contribution to the debate that has been brought back to the UK.
	Visits overseas to developing nations have many purposes and benefits. Often, they leave visitors profoundly shocked by the different experiences for those who happen to be born and brought up in different parts of what should be one world. In many parts of the developing world, women are bearing the brunt of inequalities. Last summer, Lady Fiona Hodgson went with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and some 40 colleagues to Rwanda for two weeks to take part in a series of projects that were put together with the co-operation of the Rwandan Government and led by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). The visit was inappropriately criticised at the time, and those who made such criticisms should be ashamed of themselves.
	During those two weeks, Fiona Hodgson of the Conservative Women's Organisation spent a lot of time with women from all levels of society in Rwanda. In 1994, Rwanda was the scene of a dreadful genocide, and because that genocide targeted men in particular, there are many widows, orphans and children who are heads of households. Many women lost their children, but they decided that because a new family structure was needed and because every child was special, they would adopt. Some women have adopted 18 or 20 children.
	Many people lost their homes. Previously women would never have been involved in such things as house building, but now they are. Many more women had to become breadwinners. Rwanda has the highest proportion of women in its Parliament, at some 48 per cent. In the 14 years since the genocide, the women of Rwanda have achieved their first phase of political empowerment and equality and are now working on their second vision of economic empowerment of women coupled with health provision and social welfare.
	Finally, I join the voices in this country and others who pick out the availability of water as the single most important need that the world collectively has the resources to address and that might make the single most important difference to the lives of women throughout the world. Visitors to many parts of Africa come away haunted by the spectre of so many women and children carrying huge cans of water with grace, skill and strength as they try to take the water that they need for just a few hours. More than 1.1 billion people have no access to safe water. Each year, more than 1.5 million children under five die from diarrhoea caused by dirty water. It is estimated that up to 118 million people, mostly children, will die over the next 15 years from water-related diseases, all of which are preventable.
	Throughout the world, millions of people have to walk miles to find water, and they often find at the end of the journey that the water is dirty and unhygienic. Accordingly, I support the various organisations in this country that are doing what they can to raise awareness of the problem and seek change by supporting the efforts of NGOs and voluntary and charitable organisations to achieve such change.
	I particularly commend the "Turn on the Tap Challenge 2008", organised by the Christian group Samaritan's Purse. On 10 May, or thereabouts, it will be organising walks all over the country for children, schools, faith groups and others, who will symbolically walk a few miles to raise money and remember those who need to walk and carry heavy loads every day. Much of that burden falls on the women of the world, and if they were relieved of it, the time that they spend doing what takes us only a second would be freed up, and they would be freed from their frustrations. They could learn, train or be in more profitable work.
	Occasionally, constituents come to our advice centres and say angrily that we are living in third world conditions in relation to our roads, health service or transport. They have no idea what they are talking about. On international women's day, we should dedicate ourselves to freeing women from the circumstances that they have to endure all too often, about which our population fortunately knows very little.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for part of this debate on international women's day.
	I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I was particularly interested by his thoughtful comments on Yarl's Wood. I have been concerned about constituents who have gone there, and I share his concern about children being there. He made some important points on that.
	It is good to speak on international women's day again, when we can remember women's achievements and what happens to women throughout the world. It is important to think internationally, and I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's comments about Rwanda. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. A board in the exhibition states that a study has found that in Africa,
	"on average, women carried more than 80 tonnes of fuel, water and farm water over the course of a year. That's about the same as eight steamrollers. The average for men was 10 tonnes."
	The exhibition clearly illustrates the problems that climate change is causing women and the fact that it is affecting them more than men. Today is a day to think globally.
	Here in the UK, we mark this day in many ways. It was great yesterday to be in the cross-party group that put flowers at the statue, and it was also good to be with the group of Labour women MPs who sang in the House of Commons Chapel, outside the cupboard where Emily Davison hid. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) mentioned that earlier.
	Last Saturday in my constituency, the women's forum put on the 1909 play "How the Vote Was Won" by Cicely Hamilton and Christopher St. John, which was directed by our women's officer, Pam Cartlidge. It was an exciting and vibrant occasion. The author Cicely Hamilton was a remarkable woman who co-founded the women writers' suffrage league. During world war one, she worked in nursing care and then joined the Army as an auxiliary. After the war she campaigned on various issues, including birth control. She wrote the words to "The March of the Women", the rallying anthem of the Women's Social and Political Union.
	"How the Vote Was Won" was put on last Saturday to celebrate both international women's day and the 90th anniversary of women aged over 30 getting the vote, in 1918. That applied only to women who had property, so it was only one step forward. Women got the vote in 1918, but they did not necessarily get voted in, as has been said frequently in the debate. Emmeline Pankhurst said of the suffragettes:
	"We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers."
	We might have expected there to be many more law-makers today, and I think that she would probably have been disappointed by the pace of change. We could have got much further, as the debate has shown. Things have improved, but the statistics have been widely cited today and we know that we still have a long way to go.
	We have discussed ways to achieve greater women's representation. In my view, we will achieve it only by taking the direct positive action that we in the Labour party have taken, with all-women shortlists and twinning in Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly constituencies. For many years, we tried all the other ways that one could think of involving training, encouragement and gender-balanced shortlists, but we got nowhere; only when we had all-women shortlists did we make a big step forward. Although the suffragettes would be disappointed, we have achieved a lot.
	As law makers we can make a real difference, and we have done so in many areas. We have heard a lot about those today and I shall not go over all the problems such as domestic abuse and inadequate child care provision. We now have paternity pay, increased maternity pay, flexible working rights and the national minimum wage and many other measures. One of the ways in which women have made a huge difference by being part of the governing party is by changing policy on families and children. Since Labour came into office, we have taken huge steps towards creating a more family-friendly, more equal society. Views have been transformed. When I came into Parliament in 1997, it was still not the done thing to talk about such matters—I remember hearing sniggers in the House when we talked about improving child care, breastfeeding and so on. We have made a lot of progress since then. All the parties are now striving to achieve the things that we want.
	It is now much more than the norm for women to work: in Wales in 2007, 67.4 per cent. of working-age women were in employment. Between 1997 and 2007, the women's work force has increased by 12 per cent. Women now expect to be in employment, but of course they still have to look after the children and elderly relatives. The Government have tackled head-on the question of how to balance those competing priorities. The right to request flexible working has been very successful: 90 per cent. of parents of children under six who requested flexible working have been granted it. Two of my daughters have benefited from flexible working, so it has been of great benefit to my family. However, I believe that it should be extended to the parents of children of all ages. I know that the Government are considering that in their review, and I hope that we will soon hear that the right to request flexible working, which is not such a huge thing, will be extended to parents of children of all ages. Whatever age their child, parents have needs and have demands placed upon them during so-called normal working hours, and it is important to acknowledge that.
	Another important point that I hope the review will pick up is that it should be possible for parents to request flexible working on a temporary basis. Although 90 per cent. of requests are granted, that results in permanent changes to the contract of employment, whereas often parents need to change their working hours only temporarily—for example, for the year in which their child attends nursery for half a day only. That it is necessary to change the employment contract back afterwards is a matter of concern. Parents should be able to request a year's contract.
	The gender pay gap has been discussed a lot today. People who work part-time, who we know are often women, earn far less than full-time male workers in particular. Women who request flexible working—it is mainly women who do so—or who work part-time get caught in that trap.
	Another issue relating to care for children and families that I want to flag up is the informal care provided by grandparents and friends. It has been calculated that in Wales two thirds of informal care is provided by friends and grandparents. Families in some parts of Wales are totally dependent on relatives to manage and to cope. In some ways, family members are the people who are most trusted, in any case. The Government should address the issue and see whether there is any way in which the finance available for formal care can be used for informal care. Obviously, that will require some work, but we should consider the issue. Flexible working is good for families and companies, and there is much that the Government can do to improve lives for families. We can move forward by extending flexible working to the parents of children over the age of six, being more flexible about employment contracts, recognising grandparents' role, and continuing to address the pay gap.
	I have very little time left to speak. I had intended to address the issue of vulnerable women in prison, which I feel strongly about, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) went through the statistics in great detail, so it is not necessary for me to do so. All the facts show that we are not serving women, the community or children well by imprisoning women in the numbers that we do. Many more of them could be doing community sentences. I strongly urge the Government to adopt the recommendations in Baroness Corston's report, and not to leave it too long. I am concerned about parts of the Government's prison policy, and I have doubts about the two titan prisons. We should concentrate on the matter of women in prison who should not be there. I hope that the Government will move ahead on the issue.
	I should like to end, as I started, by talking about the suffragettes. The song, "The March of the Women" by Cicely Hamilton refers to suffragettes overcoming hardships through faith, daring, humour and solidarity. As the song puts it,
	"Life, strife, these two are one, Nought can ye win but by faith and daring".
	It ends with:
	"March, march, many as one. Shoulder to shoulder and friend to friend."
	Women working together in the House of Commons have been able to achieve a lot for women in this country.

Stewart Hosie: This has been a very interesting debate, and I am delighted to be able to take part in it. I have always considered international women's day a time to audit—to consider the successes, to take stock, and to be vigilant to ensure that we do not slip back. Time is limited so I will not talk a lot about vigilance; I want to concentrate on the successes. However, having heard the comments made by Members in all parts of the Chamber about carers and caring, about work, pay and pensions, about prisons and violence, and about all the other issues that have been raised, we are right to be vigilant, and to make sure that there is no regression. We should continue to push forward and make progress with the equality that everybody wants, whatever their perspective. I can see nodding heads, and I am absolutely delighted about that, because the idea that we all want to move towards equality, from whatever direction, jars with the comments made at the beginning of the debate by the Minister for Women and Equality. I think that they were slightly ill-judged, and she may regret them when she reads them in  Hansard tomorrow.
	Some of the debate has rightly focused on the House and its composition, which is an important subject. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the point that the Scottish National party has no women Members at present. That is absolutely right; we do not. It is a matter of some regret to me, not least because 25 per cent. or so of all SNP MPs ever elected have been women, some of whom have been particularly notable. I will speak about some of them later.
	Of course, the House of Commons is not the only legislature to which women choose to be elected. It is useful and instructive to look at what is happening in the Scottish Parliament in all parties, particularly in ours. Talented young women such as Shirley-Anne Somerville and Aileen Campbell have been elected, through the list system, to the Scottish Parliament to do their politics. Experienced politicians such as Tricia Marwick and Angela Constance beat Labour incumbents in Central Fife and Livingston to do their politics there. Roseanna Cunningham and the late Margaret Ewing, who were both MPs, sought election in the Scottish Parliament. When we see women—and, interestingly, men as well—from all parties choosing to go back to the Scottish Parliament, perhaps the time has come to look again at what that Parliament is doing to make itself such an attractive proposition in comparison, perhaps, with this wonderful place. Although we finish early tonight, I shall not see my four-and-a-half-year-old daughter for the fourth consecutive evening. Perhaps we should look at some of the issues again.

Katy Clark: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment there are 13 women Scottish National party MSPs, about 27 per cent. of the parliamentary party. That is fewer than the party had in 1997. The SNP does, however, have a tradition of high-profile women representatives. But is the party trying to get better representation in the Scottish Parliament as well as here?

Stewart Hosie: Like all parties, we are doing that. Earlier, a helpful comment was made about the various ways in which the different parties are trying to resolve the issue according to their traditions. I have not been the national secretary of my party for some time, but when I was, I wrote the guidelines for the avoidance of discrimination at the selection-meeting stage. There is a whole process to be carried out—not least the mentoring and training done by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives and the route that the Labour party has taken. I pay tribute to the Labour party; being an institutional party with big power blocs, its mechanism was perhaps the only one available to it to solve the problem that it saw.
	It is useful to consider the high-profile nationalist women elected to the House of Commons. When Winnie Ewing was elected in 1967, there were 26 women in the 1966 intake; when Margot MacDonald won the Govan by-election in 1973, there were still 26 women in the 1970 intake. When Margaret and Winnie Ewing won again in February 1974, they were two of only 23 women in that intake. When Roseanna Cunningham won in 1995, there were 60 women in the 1992 Parliament, and when Annabelle Ewing was elected in 2001, there were 118. There are now 126 women, just short of 20 per cent. of the total number of MPs.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) mentioned the compositions in the Scottish Parliament, and they are instructive. In 1999, 2003 and 2007, there were 48, 50 and 43 women respectively—37 per cent., 39 per cent. and 33 per cent. Those figures are not perfect, but they are better than the ones for this place. There is much to be done and we need to get equality, but those Scottish numbers are significantly better in all years than Westminster has ever achieved.

Linda Gilroy: Does what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned not have something to do with the Labour Government's commitment in the devolution process to achieving such an outcome?

Stewart Hosie: The people of Scotland were right to choose the settlement that they got; if one party wants to claim credit, it can go ahead and do so. However, with the greatest respect, I should say that the Scottish people campaigned for devolution and voted in a referendum for the settlement that was finally delivered.

Jo Swinson: On the issue of the difference between voting in respect of the Scottish Parliament and here, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although not a panacea, the proportional voting system can help improve women's representation through the list mechanism? It would, for example, be embarrassing to have a purely male list for a region.

Stewart Hosie: That is absolutely right. The system also offers possibilities for zipping on the list as a mechanism, for example, for improving the gender balance. I am sure that all parties will continue to consider such issues.
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned the number of women in the Scottish Parliament. More than a third of the Scottish Government is made up of women, and they are not just making up the numbers. Linda Fabiani is the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, Fiona Hyslop is the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and Maureen Watt is the Minister for Schools and Skills. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, is ably supported by Shona Robison, the first-class Minister for Public Health.

Jo Swinson: Declare your interest.

Stewart Hosie: I will do so. My wife, as the Minister for Public Health, can normally get home in the evening to see her daughter, even if it is late. I suspect that even women and men Members who live close to London find such a thing impossible, particularly on Monday and Tuesday evenings—or nights, or early following mornings. That matter should be reconsidered.
	In addition, the leaders of the Opposition Labour and Conservative parties in the Scottish Parliament are both women. This is my one bit of partisan politics today; while Annabel Goldie is leading the Tory group with some style and panache, I fear that Wendy Alexander is not performing to quite the same level and, sadly, has been undermined by the man who lives in 10 Downing street.
	The 2003 intake to the Scottish Parliament, approximately 38 per cent. of whom were women, was quoted by someone who has been mentioned earlier today. Hillary Clinton said:
	"We should look to you for leadership and inspiration"
	in paying tribute to the leading role of women MSPs in shaping the policy agenda within the Scottish Parliament and Scottish governance. That is vital; it cannot just be about numbers, but about what can be delivered with those numbers. I think Hillary Clinton was absolutely right.
	That 38.75 per cent. figure was recognised as the third-highest level of women's representation in legislative assemblies in the world. I understand also that the Inter-Parliamentary Union regards any Parliament with female participation above 30 per cent. as noteworthy and exceptional. The numbers I have described are good, but they show that Westminster would receive "must do better" on a report card.
	Since 1918, in every single election in Scotland to every seat, only 34 women have ever been elected and I am proud that five of them were from my very small party. Most impressive of them all was Winnie Ewing, who won the Hamilton by-election, without which there would not have been the pressure for devolution and now the Scottish Parliament. She was also elected to three legislatures: to this place twice, to Europe three times—she was appointed the first time, in 1974—and to the Scottish Parliament, where she became the Mother of the House.
	I said I wanted to talk about successes and I shall do so in relation to two successful women. The first was Muriel Gibson, who died sadly in 2005 aged 92. She rose to become a lieutenant-colonel in the Army. That was highly unusual; she was the exception that broke the rule. The second is another lieutenant-colonel, Kate Howie, who won a Perthshire council by-election two weeks ago, with 60 per cent of the vote. I was wrong when I said that I had only one bit of partisan politics; Labour got 3 per cent., which I think is worth putting on the record. She also became a lieutenant-colonel, but her achievements—rising in the military, her civilian career and her success in the election and in the council chambers—are now normal. In the modest time scale from Muriel Gibson to Kate Howie, the change is extraordinary and we should celebrate the fact that women can now succeed in any walk of life they choose. We must not be complacent, but this sort of success is normal.
	In 1967 Winnie Ewing said:
	"Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on"—
	a slogan some of us are still campaigning on. On 12 May 1999, as the Mother of the House in the Scottish Parliament, she said,
	"the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened."
	I can think of no better measure of success than that it was someone such as Winnie Ewing who reconvened that Parliament, which has delivered so much in the way of opportunity for women to engage in politics at a national level and in delivering the kind of policies that women in particular—men as well—need. I hope we will all continue to push—here, in Scotland and elsewhere—not just to better the lot of women, but to better the lot of the whole of society.

Judy Mallaber: It is a particular pleasure to speak in the debate under your chairwomanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have fond memories of speaking when we were celebrating the struggle of the women chain makers in your constituency on the issues of low pay, a minimum wage and women's pay.
	Virginia Woolf said:
	"For most of history, Anonymous was a woman".
	That is rather a good quote. International women's day and the struggle for the franchise were intended to ensure that women were no longer anonymous or unrepresented, and that women's voice was heard and their concerns acted on. I am proud that in Derbyshire, of the 10 MPs, four are Labour women. I am pleased that in the new 11th constituency, the Conservatives have adopted a woman candidate. I am glad that they have come on board, as the woman whom they have selected has for many years complained about the barriers that she encountered in trying to be selected as a Conservative candidate. We are all familiar with those barriers. I am proud that one of our Labour women in Derbyshire was the first woman Foreign Secretary, as has been mentioned.
	I shall focus on women in work and the gender pay gap. I refer the House to the just published report from the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, entitled "Jobs for the Girls". It was drawn up by a Sub-Committee which I chaired with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). We know that there is still a stubborn pay gap.
	It is particularly good to discuss that issue in a debate on international women's day. As we have heard, the celebration of international women's day originated in the United States as a result of the industrial struggle in a period of huge expansion and turbulence in the industrialised world. The first march took place in the States in 1909, after 15,000 women had marched through New York city, demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights. Today it is particularly relevant to talk about women at work and the struggles that we still face.
	Today we are celebrating achievement and considering the direction in which we must still go. There has been great progress. When I first became involved in promoting the interests of women, one was regarded as a lunatic feminist if one thought that balancing home and work commitments was an issue or a priority. Indeed, in the House I have been called a Stepford wife because I spoke about us promoting our policy of equal rights for part-time workers, on which we still have a long way to go. I found it odd that I was attacked for promoting the Government's policy, as it had taken about 20 years to persuade my own party to adopt it. It would have been strange for me not to support it.
	We have made progress. Now it is not regarded as mad to talk about the work-life balance; now that is almost sanctified as a policy. I was pleased that when we were drawing up our policies before the 1997 election, and our prospective Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, was being careful not to make too many uncosted financial commitments, one of the first two priorities that he identified was child care. He understood that it was not just a moral and ethical stance to promote child care, but that it was an economic issue. It is crucial that those are linked.
	That is what our Committee report has done. The work originated under the Trade and Industry Committee, and we started it partly because of the economic problems associated with the pay gap. In the press release that I put out when launching the report, I said:
	"The gender pay gap persists despite thirty years of equal pay legislation, largely due to occupational segregation."
	That gap is very stubborn and difficult to deal with, although we have made some progress. As I went on to say, the gender pay gap
	"is not only unfair to women but also limits the pool of recruits available to employers at a time when harnessing and extending the skills of all is increasingly vital for the health of the economy. To tackle this will require a culture change amongst employers, unions, in educational institutions and the whole of society."
	We need a determined battle on every front if we are to make further progress.
	One area that was referred to in our report, with which I was involved in a previous capacity when I worked for the then National Union of Public Employees, was the campaign for the minimum wage, which has been so important in starting to equalise pay for some women, and in starting to break down the pay gap, particularly at the bottom of the pay scale. In my union, that issue had been campaigned on for decades by an enlightened general secretary who made the case for county road men. It took a long time for us to recognise that it would be an important issue for women. It was a long struggle to get the labour movement to accept that we should intervene, and to get that acceptance across the spectrum. As has been said, the change was opposed vehemently in this House, and I am pleased that it is now recognised that the change was of great importance for women. I recognise, however, that there are still difficulties with regard to enforcement and so on.
	I hope that people will look at our Select Committee report, and that there will be further debate on it in Parliament. The report covers a range of issues, and I have time to tackle only a few. We looked at the implementation of the recommendations of the Women in Work Commission, set up by the Government and chaired by Baroness Prosser. It has been said that we need to look at a range of areas, not just legislation, if we are to promote equality and make further advances.
	I shall just canter through a few of the issues that we raised, some of which have been touched on. We considered the fact that one of the key factors in the gap between men and women's pay is occupational segregation: men and women going into different areas of work. It was said earlier that educating women and girls was critical. Of course that is important, and it is important internationally, but girls have been doing well in education compared with men, and there is still a pay gap. That is because of the terms under which women go into employment, the jobs that they go into and—a point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove—the way in which that gap persists among similarly qualified people even five years after graduation.
	If we are to break down barriers, one of the early things to consider is education. We considered two issues: work experience placements and careers advice in schools. Those should not just be an add-on for a teacher; more resources and effort need to be put into those practices. The YWCA has come up with a number of interesting ideas, including the need to try different work placements at school. I welcome our huge programme to expand apprenticeships, and I also welcome the fact that, within that, it has been recognised that we should examine the work into which boys and girls, and men and women, go.
	In one of my local schools, a girl wanted to go into construction because she wanted to follow in her father's footsteps—he was in the construction industry. She was put off by her family, who said, "No, you can't do that", even though they should have looked upon her following her father as a matter of pride. I also met a young woman in an engineering company providing signalling equipment for the railways, which was very proud of the fact that she had been taken on as a young apprentice. It adopted her—they thought that she was wonderful and hoped that she would carry on. There are good examples, and less positive ones. I hope that we can do more to promote the idea of women going into more traditional areas of work.
	There are not so many opportunities for older women to reskill if they want to go back to work. We looked at work done by Ofsted, which has examined whether courses are provided in a flexible way.
	When we asked Baroness Prosser about her key priorities she highlighted one that has been raised today: the dearth of good quality part-time work. A report last week showed how women managers, wanting to work part-time after having a baby, see their opportunities and chances for qualification plummet because they are made to take jobs at a lower level. There has been a quality part-time work initiative, and the TUC and CBI said to us that they hoped that full funding would be provided, as recommended by the commission, to promote that initiative. We have to get beyond pilots and extend those initiatives across a broader range of the economy.
	We considered legal changes because there was a feeling that the discrimination law review had not found the answers. If we continue not to make strong progress, we will have to examine again compulsory pay orders or extending the gender equality duty to the private sector.
	Apart from flexible working, public procurement is a good tool for considering ways in which to promote equality. The Olympic Delivery Authority is currently examining that. It is possible to use some of the power of public authorities over contracts and the provision of services to promote women's equality. That harks back to arguments about what local authorities did many years ago in some places with contract compliance. Further work could be done on that.
	I hope that we can examine the Select Committee report further and some of the issues that it raises. The matter is complex and requires considering all aspects of a range of subjects. We need a massive culture change if we are to make further progress. I hope that hon. Members in all political parties will commit themselves to such progress.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members are still hoping to catch my eye—I know that they have been waiting patiently. May I please ask for shorter speeches so that, I hope, everyone can make a contribution?

Brooks Newmark: I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I am delighted to contribute to today's debate to mark international women's day on Saturday. Hon. Members may know by now that I was born in the United States, but they might not know that the predecessor to international women's day was also born across the pond in February 1909. It had far more dubious parentage than mine—the Socialist party of America. Early socialist credentials stood the movement in good stead when the observance of international women's day in Russia on 8 March 1917 coincided with the downfall of the tsarist regime. However, the story of women's rights has much more to do with evolution than revolution.
	Women won the vote not because Emily Davison shocked race-goers at the Derby but because those who survived her proved themselves indispensable during the great war. If Emmeline Pankhurst, Emily Davison and Millicent Fawcett were the figureheads in the fight for women's rights in the 20th century, J. S. Mill provided much of the early impetus for that fight during the 19th century.
	Mill represented Westminster as a Member of Parliament, but his constituency was far broader, and the debt that is owed to him is correspondingly deeper. Gladstone described him as the "the saint of Rationalism", and he was certainly more rational than his electorate, who failed to return him to Parliament after he had been a Member for only three years.
	It is striking that Mill's contribution to the debates of his day continues to be relevant to the debates of ours. Although we have made tremendous advances in some matters, there is clearly ground to be made up in others. When Mill spoke out on the admission of women to the electoral franchise, for example, he believed that it would address the practical grievance of the lack of property rights then given to women. He told the House simply that
	"if we were besotted enough to think these things right, there would be more excuse for us; but we know better."
	The fight for property rights for married women now seems like something out of the dark ages. However, that one moral right, which Mill explicitly identified as a justification for extending the franchise to women, had a long and painful gestation. Between 1857 and 1882, 18 married women's property Bills were introduced in Parliament and an Act finally appeared on the statute book only in 1882, by which time Mill had said goodbye to the world along with Westminster.
	The substance of the inequality is perhaps less important than the lesson that there will always be those who say that change takes time and that it must be allowed to run its course. Our answer to them should be that sometimes the pace of change needs to be given as much encouragement as possible. I am therefore proud to be co-chair of the Conservative party's women2win campaign with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I am also proud to claim Nancy Astor, the first woman to take her seat in the House of Commons, as both a Conservative and a fellow Anglo-American. The campaign women2win is making great strides to secure better representation among women, without the party needing to resort to the expedient of all-women shortlists, proving that positive action does not necessarily mean affirmative action.
	Helping to encourage the right women to be selected for winnable seats is a challenge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has set us. It is a challenge that we are undoubtedly meeting, with one third of the prospective candidates whom we have so far selected being women, as we heard earlier. All the women selected have shown not only what can be achieved on merit alone, but that the Conservative party is doing what it must to improve representation of women among its candidates. Notwithstanding all that, the figure of one third is only a start. I am confident that, in the spirit of 1997, things can only get better.
	I want to return briefly to another of Mill's observations during the 1867 franchise debate, in the spirit of continuity rather than anachronism. He said:
	"I should like to have a Return laid before this House of the number of women who are annually beaten to death, kicked to death, or trampled to death by their male protectors...We should then have an arithmetical estimate of the value set by a male legislature and male tribunals on the murder of a woman, often by torture continued through years, which, if there is any shame in us, would make us hang our heads."
	The issue is no longer the values set by a male legislature or a male judiciary, because we have made great advances in those respects. Nevertheless, as we heard earlier, violence against women, the practice of forced marriage, human trafficking, female genital mutilation and that most unpleasant misnomer, "honour killing", are all alive and well in 21st century Britain. Thankfully, there is no need for us to argue that those things are wrong. We all know far better than that. However, the culture may have changed in Westminster, but it has not always changed out in the real world, and that is still the challenge to us in all parts of the House.
	Added to the category of practices that are morally repugnant are those to which many people will turn a blind eye, notably inequality in pay and pensions. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) pointed out, the median pay gap between male and female full-time workers fell from 17.4 per cent. in 1997 to 12.6 per cent. in 2007, while the mean figure fell from 20.7 to 17.2 per cent. in the same period. In the words of the women and equality unit, the median gap between male and female part-time workers has "remained fairly static," at around 40 per cent. Although there has been some progress, clearly we can all do better. Some 28,000 sexual discrimination cases were taken to employment tribunals last year, which is double the figure of the previous year. Since I am an optimist, I interpret that as evidence of a greater awareness among women of their rights, rather than of a greater incidence of discrimination, but the figures should nevertheless give us pause.
	I want to conclude with some final "grist to the Mill" from 1867, by noting his warning that
	"men are afraid of manly women; but those who have considered the nature and power of social influences well know, that unless there are manly women, there will not much longer be manly men."—[ Official Report, 20 May 1867; Vol. 187, c. 822-828.]
	One woman has, of course, proved him utterly correct. I doubt that my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher would have enjoyed being called "manly" but she certainly revelled in her Soviet sobriquet as the Iron Lady and showed her formidable strength over many years. As a member of Mr. Speaker's advisory panel on works of art, I know how delighted hon. Members in all parts of the House are that the Iron Lady was recast in bronze by Antony Dufort and placed in the Members Lobby just over a year ago.
	Lady Thatcher was a towering figure in British politics and it is more than fitting that her statue should be larger than life. As the United States focuses its electoral debate on the merits of two very different Democratic presidential candidates, let us all be proud in this country of the distance that we have already travelled and of our shared commitment to continuing that journey.

Ann Cryer: I have cut my speech down a great deal, and I shall start very near the end.
	Since February 1999, there has been a campaign for changes to the customs and practices of some of our ethnic communities, in order to improve the lot of young women born here or brought in from the sub-continent as a spouse. My friend, Alice Mahon, then the MP for Halifax, and I had an Adjournment debate on the subject of forced marriages. We did so not because we woke up one morning and searched around for an Adjournment debate topic, but because we were becoming aware of, and alarmed by, the increasing number of young ladies of Asian descent coming to us for help. They usually wanted us to ask a high commission, often the one in Islamabad, to put a stop on the provision of an entry clearance visa for their so-called husband.
	In the past nine years, things have moved on enormously. Forced marriage is no longer a taboo subject, and police forces such as that in West Yorkshire have developed excellent practices for helping victims. I should like to mention Philip Balmforth, who is employed jointly by the West Yorkshire police authority and Bradford social services. He must now be a world authority on rescuing victims and ensuring their safety. The consular section of the Islamabad high commission, with the help of the local Pakistani police, has developed some very good methods for rescuing victims and getting them to safety. The forced marriage unit here in London, funded jointly by the Foreign Office and the Home Office, is doing sterling work in giving advice. The Home Affairs Committee is looking into how further improvements can be made.
	However, all our work is with victims and potential victims. The ideas that I started off with, of winning the hearts and minds of community and religious leaders—and, through them, those of the families and wider biradaris—have not reached anything like fruition. Communities are still in denial, and those practices continue apace. I therefore hope and trust that the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which comes into force in September, and the changes to immigration regulations that are now out for consultation, will eventually stop these mediaeval practices, or at least reduce their numbers.
	On a vaguely related subject—again, I am treading on eggshells—I will continue to encourage primary care trusts to advise communities to move away from the practice of cousin marriages. Yes, many children born to such marriages are perfectly healthy, and some children born to parents who are not related suffer from birth defects. However, Bradford has the second highest number of infant deaths in England. A study by the paediatrics department at Bradford royal infirmary, led by Dr. Peter Corry, has so far identified 148 different autosomal recessive genetic conditions in child patients over recent years. Dr. Corry estimates that a typical British health district might see between 20 and 30 such conditions. There is a growing recognition of such problems by the younger generation, but that is not the case with older people and those brought in from the sub-continent for marriage. The Bradford and Airedale Teaching Primary Care Trust should be supporting a younger, enlightened generation by encouraging community elders, and parents arranging marriages, to move away from cousin marriages.
	I wanted to mention the Church of England, and the fact that 50 per cent. of its vicars are women. I look forward to seeing women bishops, and I have spoken at one or two meetings about that. However, I shall have to give up now, as someone else wants to speak.

Peter Bottomley: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), for her perceptiveness, persistence and courage and for the clever way in which she raises important issues. She is respected not only in the country but in the House.
	There are more widows in India than there are females in this country. There are between 33 million and 35 million widows there, many of whom are very poor. I want to pay tribute to Raj Loomba who, in memory of his mother, Shrimati Pushpa Wati Loomba, created a foundation with the initial aim of helping the children of 100 widows in each of the 29 Indian states. The foundation was founded 10 years ago, and I pay tribute to its success in exceeding its targets. I should also like to say how much I enjoyed listening to a speech by its patron, Cherie Blair, who spoke at a lunch for the Three Faiths Forum at the House of Lords this afternoon. Such achievements give us an indication of what can be done for people facing far greater challenges than those that we face in this country.
	In this country, there is absolutely no doubt that the position of women is getting better, but it is still wrong. Part-time working women earn less than part-time working men. There is the paradox, of course, that while part-time working women in manual jobs earn less than men and part-time working women in white-collar jobs earn less than men, if we take part-time working women as a whole, they earn more per hour than men. That is because more of them are in white-collar jobs, which means they are more qualified, and also because working-class jobs were traditionally for men.
	That will change, and I hope we will see changes in the sort of things I observed when I first became a Member of Parliament. When I was an MP representing a south-east London constituency, I visited a girls' school—a dame's school, meaning that the headmistress had become a dame, but she had actually left—and found that not a single school leaver from that school of 1,200 girls had an A-level in maths, physics or chemistry. We cannot claim that we are providing opportunity for all in comprehensive schools if children get no A-levels in maths, physics or chemistry. I am not saying that they are not capable of doing it, but those who are capable—there should be a spread of them in schools—should be able to do it. It is often a want of ambition, a want of expectation or a want of something—whatever it is, it needs changing.
	When I went to a secondary school in Westminster and asked when a pupil last got an A grade in mathematics, the school did not know. I hope that that sort of thing is changing. I will do all I can to support the achievement of good results in the so-called hard subjects—in fact, I think maths, physics and other such subjects are easier, because there are right and wrong answers. We will make a change and raise expectations so that more people can go into the professions and educational lines of work—qualifications matter.
	It is odd to think back to when I was a junior Minister in the Department of Employment. I discovered—or rather, I was told, as I did not discover it myself—that 80 per cent. of our first-line managers were female, and within two promotion grades 60 per cent. were male. Part of that was due to the fact that one had to apply for promotion rather than be given it; and part of it was a conspiracy between the management and the unions that one could not get a second promotion until a certain number of years had passed. Many women were mothers, but the fact that many male workers were fathers did not seem to matter, as they did not take time off work.
	In some ways, we expect women to take on the responsibilities and opportunities of their fathers while maintaining the responsibilities of their mothers. We should stop saying that women who are not in paid employment are not working. I have not yet met a woman with family responsibilities who was not working—or probably not doing even more work than most of their men would willingly put up with for long. They certainly carry the burden of looking after many of the older generation who need help.
	Incidentally, may I say in passing that to regard our present parliamentary hours, particularly when we start early, as "family friendly" is absolute nonsense? One cannot take a child to primary school if one needs to be at work at 9 o'clock in the morning and one cannot look after an elderly parent during the day if one has to be here. In fact, the older hours were far more compatible with family responsibilities than the present ones, but that is a side issue.
	There is not enough time to go into a number of other issues that I would have liked to cover at some length. I believe that those who make appointments should always ask themselves who are the women who can be considered on merit as well as who are the men who come naturally to mind.
	Let me provide another anecdote. When I was appointing a street works advisory committee to look into services under the roads—telephone, computer, electricity, gas and the like—11 names were put forward. I asked those who provided the advice to come and have a chat as I had noticed that all 11 were male. They said that that was due to chance. I asked what categories were being filled. They said they wanted to have someone who had been head of transportation for a major highway authority. When I said that a woman retiring from the Greater London council would also qualify, they said that they had forgotten about her. When I suggested a professor of electronics or engineering, they said, "Name one", so I named one from the university of Surrey. I said that I did not know all the universities around the country. It was suggested that we met again a week or so later. We came back with 11 names and appointed all 11: six were women and no one raised an eyebrow, because they were all clearly qualified to fill the categories for which advice was sought. Those sorts of things matter.
	Let me end, if I may, by paying tribute to my wife, who was one of those women who had not really thought of coming to the House of Commons. She once thought that the only time she would come here would be if I got run over by a bus and she would be the grieving widow, gently smiling and dabbing her eyes. In fact, she was approached and told that she was on most people's lists. She would not have come here if the suggestion had not been made to her. I think that just as we suggest to people that they should consider becoming nurses, doctors or teachers, or becoming involved in some enterprise, we ought to encourage more talented people to stand for election. We know that women can perform their roles in the Cabinet, as Members of Parliament and as councillors, and I think we should try to ensure that we do not just wait for the volunteers.
	I will end my speech there, because I know that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) wants to speak as well.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) for his courtesy.
	Let me explain, in the few minutes available to me, why I consider this day important. Various Members have pointed out that it is the 90th anniversary of the first votes for women. On that occasion my grandmother did not get the vote, because she had no property. She had three children and no husband, and she lost her job because men were returning from the first world war and she was told that she was doing men's work, so perhaps that 90th anniversary is not such a great symbol after all.
	If we want a real symbol of the change in attitudes we should think of 1997, when the culture of the House of Commons changed radically and inevitably. Those of us who were here before 1997 will know how much it changed. I do not mean just the way in which we dealt with each other outside the Chamber. Anyone who glances at a 15-year-old Order Paper will observe a very different set of priorities and preoccupations, and that is a result of the arrival of so many female Members. Most of them are on the Labour Benches—my sisters—but I think that attitudes have changed in all parts of the House, and for the better.
	When we take stock of what this Government have done, we see that there have been tremendous achievements. I do not have time to list them all. Instead, I shall mention an area in which we need to make more progress: equal pay. While I agree that we will need the pay audits that were mentioned earlier if we are to see the pay revolution that we want, we should also recognise that many women's roles as carers or mothers mean that their careers do not operate on the same basis as men's. That is at least part of the reason for the fact that the pay gap is still so wide.
	Probably more than half the work force have worked flexibly in the past 12 months, but some of that flexibility may not be good for employees' families. Perhaps we need a different kind of flexibility. We should ask what flexibility really means in our society, and we should extend the concept of how we offer it to members of the work force. As Members in all parts of the House have pointed out, because of the type of career that women pursue they often undersell themselves in the labour market relative to their qualifications, and as a result drift into less secure occupations. Very different patterns of employment now exist. Women are often temporary and agency workers—there is a continuing debate about that—and the fact that they occupy such positions makes them more vulnerable. It leads to a continuing cycle of low pay, which will also affect women's pensions at the end of their working lives.
	As this is international women's day, let me say something about the international situation. Two thirds of the 1.3 billion people living in desperate poverty on the planet are women, as are some three quarters of the nearly 900 million who are functionally illiterate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said that the need for water was one of the great needs of our planet, but education is another. The task of liberating a generation of women globally through the power of education is a challenge that is enormous but achievable. I am proud of the Government's record on international development, and the specific investment in education programmes. Such measures are fundamentally important if we are to change the way in which the world operates.
	We have heard much about people-trafficking and, in particular, about women—literally millions of them—being forced into prostitution. I urge the Minister to ensure that Britain ratifies the European convention on trafficking, and that the International Labour Organisation is given real teeth. That has not been a fashionable organisation with all Governments, but it is vital in terms of people trafficking. More effort through international organisations, and particularly the ILO, could make a genuine difference to the blighted lives of millions of people on this planet.

Shailesh Vara: May I begin by thanking all the speakers across the political divide for their contributions to this debate? I must say, however, that it is regrettable that the Leader of the House gave such a partisan speech in a debate of this sort. She did neither herself nor her cause any good. It was particularly regrettable that, although every Member has the right not to accept interventions, the reason she gave for not accepting an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was that he is a man. The Leader of the House should reflect on the fact that although he is a man, he was elected to this House by women and men, and he is their spokesman.
	It is also regrettable that not one Labour Member could bring themselves to pay tribute to Lady Thatcher.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Shailesh Vara: There was one exception: the hon. Lady. It is, however, regrettable that no other Labour Members could bring themselves to pay tribute to a woman who fought through a male-dominated society to become not only leader of her party but Prime Minister.

Brooks Newmark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Shailesh Vara: I will give way, but let me say at the outset that I am under a very strict time constraint; I am mindful that the Minister also wishes to speak, so my contribution must be very brief.

Brooks Newmark: I wish merely to make an observation: I am surprised that the Leader of the House has not had the courtesy to return for the winding-up speeches, following her diatribe at the beginning of the debate.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am afraid that that only adds to the Leader of the House's demeaning of her office—something she has done from the start of the debate right to the end.
	This House has come a long way since Nancy Astor was first elected to it. Of course, we all accept that there is a long way to go yet, and I for my part accept that my party needs to do more on its Benches as well. There has been much comment from the Labour Benches about the lack of women Conservative Members of Parliament, but we hope very much that that will be rectified after the next election—and as far as the Government are concerned, I am sorry to say that that is likely to be at their expense.

John Austin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shailesh Vara: No, I will not give way; I am under a time constraint.
	Women in Britain continue to suffer inequalities, as we heard. The gender gap continues, and our work climate is still not able fully to accommodate women who have the pressures of looking after their family, such as their children and elderly relatives. Those points were most articulately made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) expanded on them. Unsurprisingly, pensioner poverty among women remains much higher than among men.
	Reference was also made to domestic violence. It is a scandal that there is such a high level of domestic violence in our country. According to the British crime survey, in 2005-06 there were 363,000 incidents of domestic violence, but I agree with the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) that that is very much an underestimate, because the shame and embarrassment that many women feel about that often prevents them from coming forward to make complaints.
	Many Members referred to human trafficking. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for his sterling work as chairman of the all-party group on trafficking of women and children—a group of which I am privileged to be joint vice-chairman. I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House is now in the Chamber, but it was regrettable that she could not bring herself to mention him by name, despite the fact that many Ministers regularly pay tribute to him personally.
	On the international aspects, I agree that there is much to be done in many of the less developed countries, but some progress is being made. In India, for example, Sonia Gandhi is leader of the Congress party, Pratibha Patil is India's first ever woman President and Shubha Raul is mayor of Mumbai, which is a major city. On international health, it is regrettable that in countries such as Sierra Leone one in seven women dies in childbirth.
	The contribution by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) took us, in a way, into calmer waters following the heat of the opening speeches. It was good to hear her reference to Leonora Cohen, a suffragette; it brought substance to this debate. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) rightly highlighted the fact that the rape crisis centres are closing, and it was also good that somebody from another party was able to pay tribute to Lady Thatcher.
	I welcome the pledge by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) to travel overseas to spread the message of equality for women. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) spoke of the significance of education, and I was reminded of the words of Mahatma Gandhi:
	"If you educate a man, you educate an individual; if you educate a woman, you educate a family".
	The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) gave a short history of international women's day and also put matters into perspective. I am sure that no one will disagree with her comment that women throughout the world should have the benefits that women in Britain enjoy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) made a number of points, rightly saying that we should seriously consider why women do not take up careers in Parliament in order to serve their community and their country. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) highlighted the impact that women MPs have had in the House, rightly pointing out the influence that they have had in Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Defence.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) spoke with his usual eloquence, and there was universal support for him in mentioning the need for a crèche in the Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) gave a typically thoughtful and compassionate speech. His experiences in Rwanda, particularly as regards women ensuring that there was clean water for themselves and their families, were particularly noted by all of us.
	The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) gave a good explanation of what is happening in the Scottish Parliament. As he said, that point has even been made by Hillary Clinton in the US election campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) gave a learned speech. Long may he continue to do sterling work as joint chairman of women2win.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who brought her welcome expertise to this debate. Despite considerable opposition at times, she has stayed firm on issues that are now recognised by others as deserving of serious consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) put matters in perspective when he told us that there are more widows in India than there are women in this country.
	The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) concluded by referring to the continuing theme of the need for a change in culture in the House, and he also rightly pointed out the issue of human trafficking. In my constituency, the Cambridgeshire police have done sterling work in trying to deal with human trafficking and the desperate situation where a woman can be bought in a pub for £1,000 in Peterborough.
	Despite the heat of the speech given by the Leader of the House at the start of the proceedings, the debate has been a good one. I hope that in a small way we have played a role in helping to further the cause of women throughout the world.

Barbara Follett: I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made today. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) said that there is no such thing as a women's issue, and the huge range of topics covered today illustrates the truth of that statement. We have had 30 speakers and I am glad to say that many of them were men. Women cannot do this alone, and I want to work with men in the House and outside to correct the democratic deficit that we face.
	The huge range of subjects and number of speakers also mean that in the 10 minutes that I have to reply to the debate I shall not be able to cover all the contributions made and questions asked. I apologise for that, but listening is just as important a part of a ministerial role as speaking, and I have done quite a bit of the former today. I shall try to address some of the main points that were raised today.
	Only 19.5 per cent. of the Members of this House are women, and that is a shamefully low statistic. Many people have mentioned the 48.8 per cent. of women MPs in Rwanda and the 32.8 per cent. in South Africa. Even Afghanistan has 27 per cent., so we have a long way to go. The same applies at local government level, with only 29 per cent. of local councillors being female, a shamefully tiny fraction of whom are from black and ethnic minority communities. There are no Asian woman MPs. In public life, in the judiciary and the upper echelons of our civil service and financial sector, women remain woefully under-represented. But things are being done to correct that, and I am glad to say that we have made significant advances over the last decade—even getting the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) to join women2win, about which I am very pleased— [ Interruption. ] I am not being sarcastic: I cannot express how much I welcome the change of heart on both sides of the House. We have recognised the part that women have to play in politics and we are acting on it.
	I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for reminding us of the inspiring work done by women inside and outside the House, and for her measured assessment of what I regard as one of our greatest achievements. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee considering the minimum wage legislation, and I well remember the 36-hour filibusters in which he took part. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality stressed, that legislation has virtually eradicated the gender pay gap at lower income levels—and I know that the hon. Gentleman has reviewed his position on the minimum wage.
	I also welcome the assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend gave that we will extend the provisions that allow positive action in parliamentary selections. I do not like them—no one likes them or wants positive action—but without them, I fear that we would not achieve for several hundred years the representation in this House that women deserve.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) raised several important points, not least of which was the need for affordable child care. As a mother of five and grandmother of four, I am glad to say that since 1997 the number of child care places in this country has doubled, and the Government are providing a staggering £3 million a day through the working tax credit to help parents meet the cost.
	The right hon. Lady also raised the issue of trafficking. Like her, the Government regard trafficking as a modern form of slavery, which is why we have signed the European convention and are taking the necessary steps to ratify it by the end of this year. It is also why we are doing so much to support the victims of this truly horrible trade. As the right hon. Lady knows, the Government are reviewing their prostitution strategy and looking closely at measures to reduce the demand for that service. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on that, and I hope that she continues with it.
	I want to clarify the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Women and Equality about the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This week, the Government announced that in the summer we will introduce domestic violence homicide reviews. We are considering the timetable for the introduction of restraining orders, as set out in section 9 of the Act, which is one of our priorities.
	Like the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I am saddened by the fact that almost 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 was passed there is still a gender pay gap in this country. I am glad to say that it is slightly less than she said: it is not 17.9 per cent. but 12.6 per cent.

Jo Swinson: It depends on how it is measured.

Barbara Follett: Yes, but there has been a drop and I am glad about it. However, the gap remains unacceptably high for full-time and part-time workers. We hope to address some of the causes in the equality Bill that will be announced in the Queen's Speech in November. We need transparency and enforcement.
	I do not think that any of the measures would have been introduced had it not been for the vastly increased representation of women in this House. I will be happy to work with both Opposition Front Benchers to attract more women into a parliamentary career. My feeling is that the long-hours culture in this place is a disincentive, but I know that that is a highly contentious subject that we could argue about well into the night.

Harriet Harman: Let's not do that.

Barbara Follett: Let us not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) highlighted the benefits of the university campus that is being built in her constituency, which will bring black, Asian and minority ethnic women into the university arena. As 40 per cent. of women of Bangladeshi origin living in this country have no educational qualifications at all, we have do what we can to ensure that such women access the available opportunities.
	As the hon. Member for Epping Forest emphasised, we must also ensure that the 44 million girls in the developing world who will go to bed tonight without having gone to school and with no prospect of going to school get the chance to go. It is pointless investing millions in developing countries if people do not have the skills to make progress.
	Health was mentioned several times, and like my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, I am glad that chlamydia screening has been rolled out in 88 per cent. of all primary care trusts in England. I am also extremely glad that girls of 11 are receiving injections to protect them against the scourge of cervical cancer. One of my daughters is a junior doctor in a London hospital and—believe me—I am all too aware of the failings in the system. I was pleased by the Health Secretary's announcement of £330 million extra funding to ensure that mothers get the best possible care and a fuller range of choices.

Jo Swinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Follett: I am sorry; I have to finish. I have two minutes and I must mention violence against women and, in particular, rape crisis centres.
	I am pleased that we have 20 new sexual assault referral centres and that we will have 19 more by the end of this year. I am also aware of the vital role played by rape crisis centres and my right hon. and learned Friend and I are working across Government to ensure that they are integrated in and work with the new sexual assault referral centres. Mention was also made of women in prison and the ground-breaking Corston report. I am glad to say that the Government have accepted 40 of its 43 recommendations.
	I cannot give carers the time that they deserve in my speech, except to say that the subject is one of the priorities of the Ministers for women, and neither can I do so for forced marriages, cousin marriages and the international situation.
	On international women's day, I want hon. Members to remember what the colours I am wearing stand for: purple for dignity in Parliament—I would like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) to remember that when he makes pointless points of order—white for purity in public office and green for hope. The hope is that we can stop posturing and work better in here on the issues. We are all here because we care, not because we want to make silly points.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of International Women's Day.

PETITION

Post Office Closures (Maidenhead)

Theresa May: I should like to present a petition of 1,384 signatures concerning the closure of the post office in Cookham road, Maidenhead.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those concerned about Post Office closures in the Maidenhead constituency,
	Declares that the closure of the Post Office in Cookham Road would be an unacceptable loss to the local community and pose serious difficulties for all the local people who rely on it.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to instruct the Post Office Ltd to keep open Cookham Road Post Office and to listen to the views of the local people in respect of their objection to the closure of this vital part of the local community.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000142]

RAF WELFORD (SECURITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to be able to raise this matter. I welcome the Minister to his place, as he has been extremely courteous to me in my short time in the House. I think that I must be one of the higher-maintenance Members for him and his Department, for a host of reasons. I place on the record my gratitude to him and his civil servants for the courtesy and tenacity with which they have taken up a number of matters. I have another for him tonight, which is related to a military installation in my constituency called RAF Welford.
	RAF Welford is a former wartime air base. During the second world war it was visited by both Churchill and General Eisenhower and considered to be of major strategic importance to this country and our allies. It remains so today, because it is now one of the largest ammunition storage facilities in Europe. It is currently under the command of the 420th Munitions Squadron, in support of the 501st Combat Support Wing at Fairford. That is a United States air force forward operating air base, last used in operational circumstances as recently as 2003 in the Gulf war.
	The site at Welford covers more than 800 acres in isolated Berkshire downland, but it is accessible. It is only 38 miles from its parent base at Fairford, and has access to the M4. Having its own access to a major arterial motorway is one of its unique features. It is used to store large, air-delivered bombs, many of which are extremely old. On my visit there today, I heard of plans to reduce the amount of ordnance stored there by roughly half, principally because of the reduction in the use of so-called dumb bombs in favour of so-called smart bombs. Today's armed forces need less ordnance to achieve the same result, and much of the ordnance there dates back to the Vietnam war. RAF Welford is an extraordinary place to visit. From the ground one can see the extraordinary earth bunds, which are also visible on Google Earth. Much of the ordnance is still sitting out in the open air, although much of it is now being covered.
	About last October, rumours started to be heard in the air around west Berkshire of the removal of Ministry of Defence armed guards from the base at RAF Welford and their replacement with a much smaller number of unarmed civilian guards, possibly members of the MOD's civilian guard service. I saw it as part of my job to calm some of the concern. At that stage no one knew whether RAF Welford had a future or whether it would continue to store high explosive munitions. If no munitions were to be stored there and it was to become a place where the occasional trenching tool or mess tin was stored, there would be no need for the type of guard service that is there now. Clearly, however, it is still being used as a munitions store.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State to raise the local concerns, and I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 20 January. He set out a number of points, but the most important is:
	"The USVF"—
	the United States Visiting Force—
	"is also continually reviewing its security arrangements and the MOD is currently engaged in discussions with them regarding security at RAF Welford, however, no decision has been made."
	Later in the letter, the Minister states:
	"I would, however, like to assure you that the security arrangements at all bases, including RAF Welford, remains an important priority to both the MOD and the USVF and that any changes that might take place will only occur if they are both suitable and appropriate to the circumstances and do not compromise the overall level of security."
	That was a welcome assurance as far as it went, but it did not allay the concerns of the people who work at RAF Welford or who live close to it.
	On my visit to the base, I met the commanding officer of Welford, his superior from Mildenhall and the liaising RAF personnel from Fairford and Mildenhall. It is clear that, although Welford now stores less tonnage of ordnance, it remains very important to the USAF. A considerable investment is being made in buildings and infrastructure on the base.
	The purpose of this debate is to draw from the Minister what the review of the security arrangements is about and the implications for local people and those who work at RAF Welford. I hope that he will also address concerns arising in other parts of the country where such reviews are starting to be discussed, and those of the wider community in the present climate. The level of threat to this building is "severe", which is not as high as "critical", but it shows that we live in a dangerous world.
	Obviously, I shall not discuss in any detail the precise form of current security provision at the base. I am sure that the Minister would not thank me for doing so and will not do so himself. Suffice it to say that the current provision is comprehensive: it is a full security package provided by armed MOD police officers with access to dogs. Local people tell me that they are an extremely assiduous group of officers and that anyone who approaches the perimeter for some legitimate reason is approached immediately. However, the information we have is that those officers, who are highly professional and highly trained, are to be replaced by a much smaller number of unarmed guards, and that is the basis for a degree of concern. I therefore have several questions to which I would like the Minister to respond.
	In 2006, RAF Welford was designated a strategic site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. That puts it alongside the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston—also in my constituency—Burghfield, Devonport, Faslane, Lakenheath and two or three other important sites. Only two of the sites listed under the 2005 Act are not protected by armed MOD police: the headquarters at Northwood, which is protected by the Royal Marines, and, I believe, Feltwell, which is a base close to Lakenheath, and the MOD police from Lakenheath cover that area. The proposal is that the armed guards go, but what has changed since 2006? Prior to the deployment of armed Ministry of Defence police, there were a number of incursions on to the base by so-called peace protesters. Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, such incursions can result in imprisonment, however benign the intent of those responsible. Since the MOD police have been on the site, I believe that there have been no such incursions.
	Moving on to my second point, I have been told that it is difficult to envisage any circumstances in which MOD police on the site would be required, under the rules of engagement, to use the weapons that they carry, and that they have to be trained to use. One might therefore ask what the point is of having armed police on the site. My understanding is that under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, any of the MOD personnel may use force, up to and including lethal force, if it is a reasonable action taken in order to save life. It is obviously not necessary to have armed guards to protect property, because they could not use their weapons for that purpose, but if someone intended to remove munitions from the site for use elsewhere, or wanted to detonate a bomb on the site, they could be required to use their weapons.
	It was made clear to me when I was on the site today that the size of the munitions stored there—the smallest is about 500 lb, and there are bombs of up to 2,000 lb—means that we are not talking about the sort of thing that someone could remove from the site under their coat or over their shoulder. Some form of heavy-lifting equipment would be required. Nevertheless, an assessment was made and a risk was identified. That risk is deemed to be no longer applicable.
	My third point is that it is important to know whether the current review of the threat is being cross-checked with the assessment of our Security Service and the police. What may not be a threat to the United States air force may well be envisaged to be a threat by our security services. It is important that local people be given an assurance that the proposal is not a cost-cutting exercise by one or both of the organisations concerned. Obviously thought has been given to what would replace the MOD police officers. It has been hinted that in addition to any provision made, MOD police at Fairford could provide back-up, but there is talk of their numbers being reduced as a result of a parallel review. At times of high traffic, Fairford is a good hour away from RAF Welford, even though it is only 38 miles away as the crow flies.
	It has been hinted that Thames Valley police can provide back-up to anyone on the site, and that arrangements will be made with them, but that aspect of the issue causes me great concern. Thames Valley police force has undergone a reorganisation in recent years, which has resulted in a basic command unit that includes west Berkshire, Wokingham and Reading. West Berkshire is a low-crime area—long may it remain so—but Reading has a much higher crime rate. It is only through the tenacity of our local superintendent and his predecessors, the actions of a number of partners, and the support of the chief constable that we manage to keep police numbers up in west Berkshire to a fair degree. However, I have to say that police are pretty thin on the ground, particularly in the rural downlands. Members of the rural community frequently complain that there are not enough police officers out in those rural areas. It is frankly fanciful to believe that there are roaming patrols in the Hungerford and Newbury area that could be at RAF Welford in seconds flat in response to an incursion on to the site. It is also fanciful to believe that there is a Thames Valley police armed response unit that could respond with any degree of speed in such circumstances.
	We are also led to believe that technology can now assist in the security of such sites. I am sure that there is a degree of truth in that—sensors, CCTV and new lighting can all deter people from entering such sites. However, those are of use only if there is somebody to monitor them and others to respond when they are activated. What is the Minister's response on that? Will he give an assurance that the issue will not be yet another burden on our hard-pressed local police force? What alternative deployments or prospects will be offered to the highly respected Ministry of Defence police officers working on the site? Will there be proper consultation with the Ministry of Defence Police Federation, which has great concerns about this matter?
	As I said, I have calmed—or done my best to calm—some local concerns. I am prepared to do more placating of the rumour mill if the Government give me a little more assurance than the Minister did in his letter. I accept that there may be entirely understandable reasons why a reduction might be necessary; I am the first to accept that terrorist or criminal threats need to be constantly assessed in relation to the protection of what is stored in the base and its physical infrastructure.
	However, we need to be assured that such circumstances as result from the review will be arrived at by proper joint working between us, as host nation, and the United States air force. I understand that the memorandum of understanding that forms the basis for the contractual arrangements for the guarding of US bases is being updated; it was first published in 1980. It would be helpful to know whether the proposal forms part of that updating.
	I am extremely proud that a United States air force base is in my constituency. Greenham Common, in my constituency, is synonymous with so many things but, contrary to what people might have thought from what they saw on "News at Ten" every night at the time of the cruise missile deployment, the relationship between the United States visiting forces when they were there and the town of Newbury, which is so close, was extremely strong.
	As the local MP, it is a matter of pride to me that the forces are here. I want to make sure that the base is properly protected, and I hope that it continues in the area. I should like to place it on the record that I enjoyed meeting the United States personnel on my visit. I hope that they and us, the local people, continue to have a long relationship. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Derek Twigg: I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) for his kind comments at the beginning of his speech. He has always been courteous in his dealings with me and assiduous in pursuing his constituents' interests. We have met about various issues on a number of occasions, and I am sure that we will meet on others. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on the review of security at RAF Welford. I know that he has already raised the matter personally with the Secretary of State for Defence, and I am happy to confirm the assurance that he has already been given in the House today.
	RAF Welford is made available to the United States visiting force under the NATO status of forces agreement of 1951 and other arrangements, which are appropriate to the relationship between the UK and the US for the purpose of our common defence. The United States visiting force is present in the UK at the invitation of the UK Government, and demonstrates the special relationship between our two Governments.
	Although considerably reduced since the end of the cold war, the USVF forms an important part of the continuing US commitment to NATO and the security of this country. That importance is much more than just symbolic; direct support is provided to NATO forces and coalition forces—including, of course, UK forces.
	The UK welcomes that commitment and the contribution that the US forces provide to NATO, which remains the cornerstone of Europe's security policy and the only organisation guaranteeing its members' collective defence. Under the 1951 agreement, the Secretary of State for Defence retains legal possession and control over all sites made available to the USVF, including RAF Welford. The sites continue to be known as RAF stations for the simple reason that they are RAF stations playing host to units from the US armed forces stationed in this country.
	The USVF units remain responsible for administering their own routine, day-to-day activities. They use the RAF stations on licence technically as a matter of comity between sovereign powers and rather than as a matter of landlord and tenant, but article 2 of the NATO status of forces agreement is clear in its statement that:
	"It is the duty of a [visiting] force and its civilian component and the members thereof as well as their dependants to respect the law of the receiving State."
	We play host to a significant population of US service personnel, their civilian support personnel and their families. There are currently approximately 12,000 members of the USVF stationed at the 10 USVF bases in the United Kingdom, making a valuable contribution to our collective defence. In addition, there are a similar number of dependants, making a total USVF plus dependants of some 24,000. We should not forget that we have a responsibility to provide those personnel with a safe and secure environment and to support the important work they do, so that it is not disrupted or undermined.
	As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted by initiating this debate, any armed forces establishment is likely to contain dangerous materials. This is certainly true of RAF Welford. In those circumstances, safety is paramount, and any unauthorised incursions into military establishments may present a risk. The various warning signs around the base are there for the safety of the public as well as for the security of the base. Of course signs are not enough and it may be of value if I outline to the House the arrangements in place for the security of USVF bases.
	The degree of protection at Ministry of Defence establishments and sites used by the USVF will vary from site to site according to the location, the nature of the establishment and the risk to the site. Security measures are informed by threat assessments, which are derived from available intelligence. That involves risk management decisions, taking into account the effectiveness and proportionality of countermeasures.
	It is the UK's responsibility as the host nation to provide and fund the appropriate level of external security to RAF bases made available to the USVF in the same way as support would be provided to any MOD establishment with a similar role. In addition, the host nation will take into account legal and policy restrictions placed on the USVF and acknowledged sensitivities and concerns associated with conducting global operations while based in an overseas environment.
	There are several options that may be considered for the protection of defence establishments. The first is unarmed guarding, the core of which is provided by the MOD guard service and comprises access control measures that can include personnel and vehicle searches and patrolling, where an unarmed guard provides a limited visual deterrent but may be limited in his or her ability to respond to an incident.
	The second option is defensive armed security. An armed guard at the entrance to a military establishment provides an important visual deterrent. An armed guard is also better placed to respond in the event of a terrorist incident if a suspect is armed, and is able to react quickly to an incident. Armed guarding at UK armed forces locations is provided by UK service personnel from the unit stationed at those locations or by the Military Provost Guard Service, a specialist unit designed for that purpose. Beyond that, however, the MOD has the option of deploying the MOD police to any location owned or run by the MOD. They bring with them the full range of constabulary powers.
	In addition, police officers possess the skills to interact with personnel and the general public with a view to gathering intelligence, maintaining the peace, detecting and preventing crime and prosecuting offenders. With the agreement of the local police force they can work both inside and outside establishments. There are currently close to 4,000 personnel serving in the MOD guard service, around 2,000 personnel in the Military Provost Guard Service and some 3,500 MOD police officers. They work at more than 200 locations across the country. May I take this opportunity to make clear my appreciation, and I am sure that of all hon. Members, for the work they do in maintaining the safety and security of the armed forces and the public?
	When it comes to the USVF sites, there are some variations in this pattern. The status of forces agreement places a responsibility on the visiting forces to maintain internal security at any location provided for them. That duty is also fair and reasonable. We would not invite forces to this country who did not recognise or understand such a duty. Those responsibilities and duties are fully recognised by the USVF. It maintains a security force that has jurisdiction over US service personnel and which can provide both armed and unarmed guards for these locations. The security force does not, however, have constabulary powers. For that they must draw on either the local police force or the MOD police. Discussions are taking place with the USVF on future arrangements as part of a wider review of security at its bases, including RAF Welford. It is too early to predict the outcome, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, having made a number of important points about that.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that the MOD continues to strive to adapt and improve the security measures already in place so that they meet the evolving threat, with priority given to the protection of life and those assets critical to the delivery of our defence capability. Our security policy and standards must be proportionate to the threat, effective, consistent and cost-effective. In attempting to gain efficient and cost-effective security, it is important to ensure that appropriate physical security measures are in place and to identify the right balance and number of personnel required to perform the task.
	In closing, I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that the security arrangements at all bases, including RAF Welford, remain an important priority to both the MOD and the USVF. I further assure him that any changes that take place will occur only if they are suitable and appropriate and do not compromise the overall level of security.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock.